UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar examines the Supreme Court’s increasing reliance on expedited “shadow docket” cases and preliminary injunction appeals that bypass normal procedural safeguards, focusing particularly on the 2024-25 Term. Professor Amar argues that the Court’s rushed handling of emergency cases produces weaker opinions and undermines judicial legitimacy, and he critically observes that the Court is selectively choosing when to definitively resolve merits in cases with incomplete factual records, as demonstrated by contrasting approaches in cases like United States v. Skrmetti, Mahmoud v. Taylor, and Trump v. CASA.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar comments on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., in which the Court restricted the use of “universal injunctions” by federal district courts, which have been used to prevent enforcement of allegedly unconstitutional laws against all people rather than just the specific plaintiffs in a case. Professor Amar argues that initial reactions characterizing this as a major threat to civil rights were overstated, because courts retain alternative tools like class action certification and traditional injunctive relief that can still provide broad protection when necessary to fully protect plaintiffs.
Illinois Law professor Steven D. Schwinn critiques the Supreme Court’s recent decision to allow the Trump administration to proceed with dismantling the Department of Education, despite a legal challenge from states arguing that the move violates federal law and the Constitution. Professor Schwinn asserts that the Court’s approval of such broad executive action—without addressing its legality—contrasts sharply with its earlier rejection of President Joe Biden’s more modest student debt relief plan, revealing a troubling inconsistency and potential partisan bias in the Court’s reasoning.
Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger Citron discusses the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., in which the Court limited federal district courts’ authority to issue universal injunctions that block enforcement of executive orders nationwide. Professor Citron describes the various opinions written by the justices and argues that the Court’s formalist approach, which restricts courts’ ability to check illegal executive actions while creating a two-track system where only active litigants receive constitutional protections, represents a dangerous refusal to consider the real-world consequences during a period of unprecedented assertions of executive power.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines the most recent Supreme Court term, arguing that while it lacked the blockbuster decisions of previous years, it revealed the Roberts Court’s deeply conservative nature and troubling approach to the Trump administration. Professor Dorf argues that the conservative supermajority either fails to recognize or actively shares Trump’s authoritarian goals, treating him like a normal president and facilitating his attacks on the rule of law rather than confronting the unprecedented threat he poses to constitutional democracy.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Skrmetti upholding Tennessee’s SB1 law banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors. Professor Dorf analyzes the Court’s rejection of arguments that the law discriminates based on sex or transgender status and argues that while the Court’s opinion avoided overtly offensive rhetoric, it problematically sanitized anti-transgender legislation by treating it as legitimate medical regulation rather than acknowledging the discriminatory animus behind laws that explicitly aim to make minors “appreciate their sex” assigned at birth.
NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher examines how recent Supreme Court decisions expanding presidential removal power threaten the constitutional structure of the National Labor Relations Board, tracing the evolution from Humphrey’s Executor (which upheld independent agencies) through Morrison v. Olson, Free Enterprise Fund, and Seila Law. Professor Estreicher argues that while the NLRB’s current structure faces serious constitutional challenges under the Court’s “unitary executive” jurisprudence, the agency might survive either through judicial recognition that it does not exercise “substantial executive power” or through congressional restructuring to separate its adjudicatory functions from its enforcement powers.
Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger D. Citron examines the evolving relationship between President Donald Trump and the federal judiciary, particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, focusing on initial conflicts over executive orders and judicial authority followed by recent accommodation through Supreme Court emergency docket rulings. Professor Citron argues that while a temporary détente has emerged with the Supreme Court largely supporting Trump’s initiatives through emergency orders, this fragile peace masks an ongoing institutional challenge that could threaten the Court’s legitimacy if it fails to check executive overreach in future cases.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar analyzes the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Department of Homeland Security to reinstate efforts to end a parole program for migrants from four countries, focusing on legal standards for granting a stay and the broader constitutional and policy implications of executive immigration authority. Professor Amar argues that the federal government does indeed suffer irreparable harm when prevented from enforcing duly enacted laws and policies, and criticizes Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent for undervaluing these harms and overlooking legal precedent and practical consequences.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone analyze the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Wilcox regarding presidential authority to remove federal agency officials, focusing particularly on Justice Kagan’s dissent that criticized President Trump for “taking the law into his own hands” by attempting to fire NLRB and MSPB members despite existing legal protections. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that Justice Kagan’s criticism is misplaced because presidents, as coordinate branch officials rather than subordinate courts, should be permitted to act contrary to statutes they believe unconstitutionally constrain executive power—especially since such presidential “disobedience” is sometimes necessary to bring constitutional questions before the Supreme Court for resolution. They point out that Justice Kagan herself has previously supported executive defiance of congressional statutes in other separation-of-powers cases.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone analyze last week’s Supreme Court oral arguments on President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, focusing not just on the order’s constitutionality but also on the procedural question of whether “universal” injunctions or nationwide class actions are the better tool for challenging federal policies. Professors Amar and Mazzone contend that class actions offer a fairer and more practical alternative, providing enforceable relief, reducing strategic litigation abuse, and avoiding the legal uncertainties that surround non-party protection under universal injunctions.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses yesterday’s Supreme Court oral argument on whether lower federal courts can issue universal injunctions, using as context the Trump administration’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary immigrants. Professor Dorf argues that while the Court may focus on the procedural issue of universal injunctions, it has a duty to strongly reject the Trump administration’s constitutionally unfounded attack on the Fourteenth Amendment and safeguard effective judicial remedies against executive overreach.
Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger D. Citron examines the judicial legacy of Justice David Souter, focusing on how his intellectually rigorous and nuanced approach in key Supreme Court cases—particularly Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and United States v. Mead Corp.—has had lasting but complex effects. Professor Citron argues that while Souter’s brilliance and detailed reasoning reflected a high-minded commitment to the common law tradition, his tendency to write narrowly yet extensively may have unintentionally undermined the clarity and durability of his rulings.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines the judicial philosophy and legacy of Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, contrasting him with ideologically driven judges and situating his approach within the traditional conservative lineage of Justices Felix Frankfurter and John Marshall Harlan. Professor Dorf argues that, despite being criticized by conservatives, Souter embodied a principled, restrained, and thoughtful conservatism that emphasized judicial humility and methodological integrity—qualities lacking in today’s ideologically rigid judiciary.
UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin analyzes a pending U.S. Supreme Court case in which the State of Oklahoma is challenging the approval of a publicly funded Catholic charter school, arguing that it violates both state and federal constitutional prohibitions against the establishment of religion. Professor Griffin contends that allowing a religious school to operate as a public charter institution would erode the Establishment Clause, disproportionately empower a single faith, and undermine the neutrality and inclusivity foundational to public education.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines recent calls by President Donald Trump, Speaker Mike Johnson, and their allies in Congress to remove or sideline federal judges who have blocked Trump administration policies, either through impeachment or by eliminating the courts themselves. Professor Dorf argues that such tactics are constitutionally dubious and dangerously undermine judicial independence, warning that the real threat to the republic comes not from the judges, but from efforts to evade legal checks on presidential power.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the Supreme Court case FCC v. Consumers’ Research et al., which challenges the constitutionality of the FCC’s delegation of authority under the nondelegation doctrine. Professor Amar argues that while the nondelegation doctrine has been historically dormant, the case highlights important constitutional considerations about the delegation of legislative authority, specifically the ability to reclaim delegated power, and he urges the Court to address these broader issues if it examines the nondelegation questions in this case.
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).
Attorney Lauren Stiller Rikleen and Amherst professor Austin Sarat analyze Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’s 2024 Year-End Report and examine his pattern of using historical references in his annual reports from 2021 to 2024. Ms. Rikleen and Professor Sarat argue that Roberts uses selective historical examples and appeals to judicial independence as rhetorical devices to deflect attention from ethical concerns within the Supreme Court, particularly regarding Justice Clarence Thomas’s alleged ethical lapses and Roberts’s own refusal to enforce stronger ethical standards for the Court.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the current Supreme Court term and its potential implications for the 2024 presidential election. Professor Dorf argues that while the current docket seems relatively quiet, the Court’s history of partisan decisions favoring Republicans, combined with the possibility of election-related cases being added later, raises concerns about how the Court might handle potential challenges to the 2024 election results, particularly if Trump loses and uses his loyalists in state legislatures or other organs of government to declare him the winner anyway.
