In this second of a two-part series, arbitrator and mediator Barry Winograd continues to explore the challenges in interpreting the transportation worker exemption under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and proposes a solution. Mr. Winograd suggests that courts should look to established labor and employment laws, such as the National Labor Relations Act, Railway Labor Act, and Fair Labor Standards Act, for guidance in determining who qualifies as a transportation worker, rather than relying on vague qualifiers created by the courts.

In this first of a two-part series, arbitrator and mediator Barry Winograd examines the Supreme Court's recent decision in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries and its impact on the interpretation of the transportation worker exemption under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Mr. Winograd argues that the Court’s current approach to determining who qualifies as a transportation worker has led to increasing uncertainty and inefficiency in litigation, potentially transforming the FAA from a procedural statute into a de facto substantive employment law.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the recent impeachment articles filed by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez against Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, providing historical context for impeachment of Supreme Court Justices and examining the specific allegations against Alito and Thomas. Professor Sarat argues that while the impeachment is unlikely to succeed, it is justified given the Justices’ ethical transgressions, and it serves as an important condemnation of their conduct and a reminder of the need to uphold democratic principles and the integrity of the Supreme Court.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the recent Supreme Court decision in Trump v. United States and its implications for presidential immunity and the rule of law in America. Professor Sarat argues that the decision “will live in infamy” and marks a dangerous shift towards authoritarianism by effectively placing the President above the law, contradicting fundamental constitutional principles and previous statements made by the Justices themselves.

University of Chicago law professor emeritus Albert W. Alschuler discusses the Supreme Court’s recent rulings in United States v. Rahimi and New York State Pistol and Rifle Association v. Bruen, focusing on their approach to interpreting the Second Amendment through historical analogues. Professor Alschuler argues that the Court’s reliance on irrelevant historical examples while disregarding relevant history is flawed, and that the Bruen standard is neither originalist nor workable, predicting that it will eventually be abandoned in favor of a more flexible approach that allows for some degree of interest balancing in Second Amendment cases.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses key cases from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 Term, focusing on cases where the Court made non-merits decisions and cases with high stakes beyond their precedential value. Professor Dorf argues that the Court’s procedural dismissals in significant cases like those involving social media content moderation and abortion access led to public confusion and missed opportunities to clarify important legal questions, while its rulings in high-stakes cases such as those involving former President Donald Trump had immediate and far-reaching consequences that sometimes overshadowed their legal precedents.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the media's coverage of Supreme Court decisions, particularly focusing on the end-of-term rulings and their interpretation by journalists. Professor Amar argues that many prominent media organizations consistently misrepresent the Court’s actions by drawing incorrect conclusions from decisions not to review cases or dismissals, misinterpreting jurisdictional rulings as judgments on the merits, and making unfounded predictions about case outcomes, thus failing to meet basic standards of accuracy in legal reporting.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Supreme Court’s recent decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson and its broader approach to Eighth Amendment cases, particularly those involving cruel and unusual punishment. Professor Sarat argues that the Court’s conservative majority, led by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, is systematically weakening Eighth Amendment protections by adhering to a narrow originalist interpretation, ignoring evolving standards of decency, and showing indifference to vulnerable populations like the homeless.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone examine the current term of the U.S. Supreme Court, addressing common criticisms that the Court has become a partisan, far-right institution aggressively pushing a conservative agenda. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that, contrary to these criticisms, the Court’s decisions in the 2023-24 term have not been consistently conservative or partisan, and that many of the high-profile cases were essentially thrust upon the Court rather than actively sought out, suggesting a more nuanced and less ideologically driven approach than critics claim.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent 6-3 decision in Garland v. Cargill, which invalidated a federal regulation banning bump stocks by finding that they do not fall under the statutory definition of a machinegun. Professor Dorf argues that the Justices’ ideological views on gun control, rather than principled differences in interpretive methodology, best explain the divided outcome in this case and many other closely contested Supreme Court cases.

Criminal defense attorney Jon May discusses the oral argument the U.S. Supreme Court heard on April 25, 2024, regarding Donald Trump’s argument that the “January 6” case against him should be barred by presidential immunity. Mr. May argues that while some Justices are concerned about the implications of limiting presidential immunity, Justice Barrett’s approach of distinguishing between official acts done in the national interest and the misuse of presidential power for personal gain is a workable solution that would allow the prosecution of Trump’s actions on January 6 without negatively impacting future presidents making difficult decisions.

Former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut discusses Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s refusal to recuse himself from a case involving Donald Trump’s claim of immunity related to the January 6th Capitol riot, despite flags associated with the insurrection being flown at Alito’s properties. Mr. Aftergut argues that Alito’s non-denial denials and failure to condemn the violence on January 6th raise serious questions about the appearance of impropriety and the Court’s legitimacy, suggesting that Alito should recuse himself to maintain public trust in the institution.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd., which upheld the constitutionality of the CFPB’s funding scheme, and examines the role of “history and tradition” in the Court’s constitutional jurisprudence. Professor Amar argues that while relying on post-enactment traditions to interpret the Constitution raises complex questions, especially in the context of originalism, such traditions may be more defensible when determining the scope of individual rights as opposed to structural provisions like separation of powers and federalism.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses a recent Supreme Court decision holding that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) funding mechanism, which draws money from the Federal Reserve System rather than yearly congressional appropriations, does not violate the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause. Professor Amar argues against the view expressed in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that this ruling could turn into a “stunning defeat” for the CFPB due to the Fed’s recent operating deficits, asserting that the Court’s decision merely rejects the Appropriations Clause as a basis to challenge the CFPB’s funding and does not affirmatively rely on that Clause to justify the Bureau’s operations.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the increasingly partisan and unethical behavior of the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, providing examples of actions by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas that he argues undermine public trust in the institution. Professor Sarat contends that progressives in Congress need to take more aggressive action, beyond speeches and task forces, to hold the Court accountable and rein in rogue behavior, suggesting they use their oversight powers to subpoena justices and potentially reduce the Court’s budget.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses how the decentralized nature of the U.S. presidential election system allows individual states to have varying rules that can significantly impact the overall outcome, as illustrated by recent examples from Ohio, Nebraska, and the Supreme Court case Texas v. Pennsylvania. Professor Amar argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Anderson, which emphasized the need for uniformity in presidential candidate ballot access across states, was not adequately defended by the Justices, as it failed to address why the Constitution permits such consequential disuniformity in election administration among states.

Guest columnist Gary J. Simson—Macon Chair in Law at Mercer Law School and Professor Emeritus at Cornell Law School—addresses the potential conflict of interest if Justice Clarence Thomas participates in the Trump v. United States case, given his wife’s involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. Professor Simson argues that Justice Thomas should recuse himself from the case to avoid further damaging public confidence in the Supreme Court, and if he refuses to do so, the other Justices should publicly disassociate themselves from his decision to prioritize the Court’s and the nation’s best interests.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone coment on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Trump v. Anderson holding that states cannot enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to bar former President Donald Trump from primary election ballots due to his alleged role in the January 6 Capitol breach. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that the Court’s reasoning, primarily based on concerns about nationwide ballot uniformity in presidential elections, is flawed because it fails to properly consider the Constitution’s overall design, which grants states significant autonomy in running presidential elections and selecting electors.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Anderson, where the Court ruled that Donald Trump could not be disqualified from appearing on the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, emphasizing the decision’s implications for the Court’s prestige and internal consensus. Professor Sarat argues that the decision, while appearing unanimous, reveals deep divisions within the Court and suggests a failure by Chief Justice John Roberts to foster genuine unanimity or to protect the Court’s reputation, further criticizing the decision’s approach and its broader implications for the Court’s impartiality.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on last week’s Supreme Court oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson, in which the Justices seemed inclined to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision that disqualified Donald Trump from the state’s Republican primary under the Fourteenth Amendment for “engaging in insurrection.” Professor Dorf points out that the Justices’ questioning revealed a spectrum of potential rationales, from concerns over political retribution and the historical interpretation of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to structural arguments about federal versus state authority in determining a candidate’s eligibility for the presidency.