In the first installment of a two-part column, University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton discusses how the 2026 midterm election will test the religious identity of the United States, focusing on the White Evangelical Christian Nationalists who claim America is a “Christian country” and their growing influence in the Trump Administration through figures like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Project 2025, and allied groups such as the Alliance Defending Freedom. Professor Hamilton argues that these nationalists rely on a revisionist history that erases the nation’s founding religious diversity, that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority and a compliant Republican Congress have helped them pursue theocracy without amending the Constitution, and that because most Americans reject Christian Nationalism, voters should use the midterms to stop it.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the Supreme Court’s new Term, which looks relatively quiet, and the major legal changes the conservative supermajority has already made. Professor Dorf argues that the Court has largely finished dismantling the liberal-era precedents it targeted, leaving few blockbuster cases, though future changes depend on who appoints the next Justices.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s third rejection of Republican officials’ attempts to use Missouri’s 2025 redistricting map (HB1) for the 2026 congressional election, situating the ruling within the broader national redistricting conflict and analyzing what it reveals about the Court’s emergency docket practices. Professor Amar argues that the decision undercuts claims that the Court’s shadow docket favors Trump, demonstrates the Court’s insistence that lower federal courts respect its prior rulings and state supreme court authority under Rooker-Feldman and Moore v. Harper, and shows the Justices applying the Purcell doctrine while placing blame for the electoral confusion squarely on Missouri’s Republican Secretary of State rather than on the state courts.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the Eighth Circuit’s latest ruling reinstating Missouri's Republican-drawn HB1 congressional maps for the 2026 election, examining how this decision fits into the ongoing legal battle following the Supreme Court's September 10 stay of a similar lower court order. Professor Amar argues that the Eighth Circuit's ruling is legally untenable because it contradicts the Supreme Court’s implicit merits assessment from September 10 and violates the Purcell doctrine’s prohibition on late judicial interference with elections already underway, leading him to predict the Supreme Court will again intervene to block HB1’s maps from being used in November.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin discusses St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, a Supreme Court case about whether Colorado can deny state funding to Catholic schools that want to exclude LGBTQ students and families while still receiving public money. Professor Griffin argues that religious freedom does not entitle schools to violate neutral antidiscrimination laws, and that the Court should reject any rule that would let religious institutions get paid to discriminate.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. California staying a lower court injunction against an executive order that involves the Postal Service in regulating mail-in ballots ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Professor Sarat contends that the ruling abandons the Court’s established Purcell principle, needlessly injecting chaos into the upcoming election and undermining democratic integrity by favoring executive overreach.

Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger D. Citron discusses a recent podcast conversation with Professor Rachel Rosenbloom regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Barbara and the broader legal history of birthright citizenship. Professor Citron highlights that while the Court rightly reaffirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship, the surprisingly narrow margin and fractured, revisionist dissents underscore ongoing political threats to constitutional equality.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the Board of Immigration Appeals’ request for amicus briefs on whether it must follow U.S. Supreme Court and circuit precedent on constitutional questions even when doing so would require finding a statute or regulation unconstitutional, a power agencies otherwise lack. Professor Dorf argues that while the two obligations can often be reconciled through careful distinctions (such as those between facial and as-applied challenges), he warns that a BIA now dominated by Trump appointees may exploit this tension in bad faith to consistently rule against immigrants, leaving the courts to correct any opportunistic or inconsistent application of these principles.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses Chief Justice John Roberts’s characterization of citizenship as “the right to have rights” in his Trump v. Barbara opinion, tracing this formulation’s origins through Chief Justice Earl Warren’s 1958 opinions back to Hannah Arendt. Professor Dorf argues that Roberts’s claim is correct despite non-citizens holding many constitutional rights, because citizenship uniquely secures the right to remain in the United States and to avoid the harms of statelessness—making the phrase especially apt given the Trump administration’s attempts to strip birthright citizenship and its aggressive termination of protections like Temporary Protected Status.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses three unexpected aspects of the Supreme Court’s end-of-term decisions from its 2025-26 term, focusing on the late-arriving ballots ruling in Watson v. Republican National Committee, the Court's departure from constitutional avoidance in three separate cases, and its mootness ruling in Little v. Hecox. Professor Amar argues that the Watson outcome was correctly decided despite media mispredictions based on oral argument, that bypassing narrower statutory grounds was justified in the birthright citizenship and Federal Reserve cases given their pressing national importance, but that the Court’s refusal to dismiss Hecox as moot—despite the plaintiff's dismissal with prejudice—was legally unjustified and appeared driven by suspicion of strategic litigant behavior rather than sound doctrine.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in Landor v. Louisiana, which held that individual prison officials cannot be sued for damages under RLUIPA even after knowingly violating a Rastafarian prisoner’s religious freedom rights. Professor Dorf argues the majority opinion is constitutionally flawed and urges future litigants to plead the Commerce Clause as an independent basis for RLUIPA and similar Spending Clause statutes.

Arbitrator and mediator Barry Winograd analyzes the Supreme Court’s unanimous May 2026 decision in Flowers Foods v. Brock, tracing its holding that “last mile” delivery drivers fall within the FAA Section 1 transportation worker exemption and placing it in the context of a four-case line of rulings progressively narrowing employer access to mandatory arbitration. Mr. Winograd argues that while workers and unions are the clear winners, significant questions remain unresolved—particularly whether courts will recognize exceptions for drivers operating through corporate or title-holding business arrangements, and whether the Court will eventually engage more systematically with parallel federal labor and employment statutes rather than relying primarily on dictionary definitions of FAA text.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the Virginia Attorney General’s emergency application for the U.S. Supreme Court to stay a state supreme court ruling that invalidated a redistricting-related constitutional amendment. Professor Amar argues that the challenge will fail because the state court’s decision rests on an independent interpretation of the Virginia Constitution and constitutes a routine exercise of judicial review that warrants deference under Moore v. Harper.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the Supreme Court’s role in enabling racial gerrymandering under the guise of partisan strategy and the resulting limitations of current legislative remedies like the Voting Rights Act. Professor Dorf argues that Congress should use its constitutional authority to mandate independent redistricting commissions or, more effectively, adopt a system of statewide proportional representation to ensure fair minority voice without using the specific racial classifications the current Court finds objectionable.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the ongoing debate surrounding the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket” in light of recent criticism from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and the release of historical internal memos regarding the 2016 EPA Clean Power Plan. Professor Amar argues that while some common criticisms of the Court’s emergency-relief practices are inconsistent or misguided, the Court should enhance its legitimacy by adopting more robust procedures, such as requiring expedited briefing and providing transparent, reasoned explanations for its decisions.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chiles v. Salazar, which applied strict scrutiny to Colorado’s conversion therapy ban as applied to a licensed talk therapist, including the strategic reasoning that led Justices Kagan and Sotomayor to join the conservative majority. Professor Dorf argues that neither the limiting principles the Court articulated nor Justice Kagan's concurrence provide coherent guidance, leaving professional regulation—especially of lawyers—dangerously exposed to First Amendment challenges.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the constitutional and policy dimensions of Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court case challenging Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, examining both the legal merits and the broader arguments for and against jus soli citizenship. Professor Dorf argues that the executive order is clearly unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, that the policy case for restricting birthright citizenship is empirically weak and practically disruptive, and that the real motivation driving the effort is racist “replacement” ideology rather than any legitimate demographic or governance concern.

Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger D. Citron —along with fellow civil procedure professors Laura Dooley, Deseriee Kennedy, and John Quinn—discusses the Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Berk v. Choy, which addressed whether Delaware’s affidavit-of-merit requirement in medical malpractice cases yields to federal pleading rules under the Erie doctrine. The professors analyze the majority’s conclusion that Federal Rule 8 displaces the state requirement under the Hanna v. Plumer framework, while also exploring Justice Jackson’s alternative framing, potential critiques of the majority’s reasoning, and the decision’s implications for access to federal courts and the ongoing challenge of distinguishing substance from procedure.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss the future of the Major Questions Doctrine (MQD) following the Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, particularly focusing on debates among the Justices about its constitutional basis and scope for limiting executive power. Professor Amar and Mazzone argue in favor of Justice Gorsuch’s robust, constitutionally grounded approach to the MQD as an essential safeguard against the unchecked accumulation of presidential authority, and urge the Court to more firmly adopt this interpretation to preserve the balance of powers.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses widespread speculation that Justice Samuel Alito may retire from the Supreme Court soon, examining both the evidence (particularly his book’s release date and strategic timing before the 2026 midterms) and the broader institutional problems this speculation reveals. Professor Dorf argues that the real issue is not the Supreme Court’s lack of transparency, but the combination of life tenure and ideological polarization, which creates an unhealthy obsession with Justices’ retirement timing and makes Supreme Court appointments depend on accidents of health and political calculations rather than a sensible democratic process.