Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses two Supreme Court cases challenging laws in West Virginia and Idaho that exclude transgender female athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports, focusing on whether such laws constitute unlawful sex or transgender status discrimination. Professor Dorf argues that the states’ defense—claiming the laws don’t discriminate against transgender individuals because the exclusions are based on “biological sex”—is a formalistic maneuver that hides clear discrimination and aims to sidestep substantive legal scrutiny rather than engage with the underlying scientific and constitutional issues.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss the procedural and constitutional issues surrounding mootness in the Supreme Court case Little v. Hecox, which challenges Idaho’s law barring transgender women from participating in women’s collegiate sports. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that the district court erred in refusing to allow the plaintiff, Lindsay Hecox, to voluntarily dismiss her case after she ceased athletic participation, and they contend that the case is clearly moot under Article III, urging higher courts to recognize this and vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision accordingly.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar examines Idaho’s proposed legislative “Memorial” rejecting the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision on same-sex marriage, using it as a lens to explore broader questions about states’ rights to challenge federal authority and Supreme Court decisions. Professor Amar argues that while states have the constitutional right to declare their disagreement with federal actions, attempts to enforce laws contradicting Supreme Court precedent are permissible when the argument for overturning is not frivolous (as with Obergefell), but would be impermissible when such arguments are completely frivolous (as with trying to overturn Brown v. Board of Education).

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the recent failed execution attempt of Thomas Eugene Creech in Idaho, highlighting lethal injection’s history of unreliability and the broader context of its use as an execution method in the United States. Professor Sarat argues that systemic issues and denial by state officials perpetuate the cruelty and inefficiency of lethal injections, urging an acknowledgment of its failures and a cessation of its use for capital punishment.

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments on a recent decision by the Idaho Supreme Court taking a narrow view of the parental rights of lesbian co-parents. Grossman explains the background of that case and the patchwork of laws state courts across the United States use to reach inconsistent, and often unpredictable, results with respect to the parental rights of unmarried same-sex partners.

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar discusses several legislative proposals in various states that purport to give state legislatures power to interpret and implement the federal Constitution notwithstanding judicial rulings interpreting the same. Amar explains some of the key differences between the different proposals and why some are likely to pass constitutional muster while others are not.

Vikram David Amar—dean and law professor at the University of Illinois College of Law—comments on a summary reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court of a decision by the Idaho Supreme Court. While Amar agrees with the Court that the Idaho court erred in reaching its decision, but he argues that the Idaho jurists were not guilty of the particular stupidity or defiance the Supreme Court imputed to them.