Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger Citron explores the current legal and political challenges surrounding partisan gerrymandering and the future of the Voting Rights Act in a podcast interview with Harvard Law Professor Ruth Greenwood. Professor Greenwood argues that while the courts have increasingly stepped back from addressing gerrymandering—most notably in Rucho v. Common Cause—lasting reform must come from a combination of legal advocacy and grassroots political action, such as the establishment of independent redistricting commissions.

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 and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss the Supreme Court case Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, which addresses whether a candidate has Article III standing to challenge state laws on ballot counting. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that a candidate likely has standing to challenge election regulations because they have an inherent interest in the clarity of election rules, even if they cannot prove the regulation would change the election's outcome, and they emphasize that resolving these issues is crucial for electoral legitimacy.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case Bowe v. United States, which raises the question of whether limits on successive habeas petitions for state prisoners also apply to federal prisoners and whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear such a case. Professor Dorf argues that while some legal scholars invoke the theory that certain review functions are essential to the Supreme Court’s constitutional role, that argument has limitations, and the Court may instead use the doctrine of constitutional avoidance to uphold its jurisdiction without definitively resolving the scope of its essential functions.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone examine whether the Supreme Court case Little v. Hecox, which challenges Idaho’s law restricting women’s sports teams to biological females, has become moot after plaintiff Lindsay Hecox withdrew from sports participation and sought to dismiss her case with prejudice. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that despite defendants’ claims of litigation gamesmanship, the Court should find the case moot and vacate the lower court’s decision under the Munsingwear doctrine, because Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement cannot be overridden by concerns about strategic behavior when vacatur adequately addresses the risk of an unreviewable precedent remaining in effect.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and professor emeritus Alan Brownstein examine the U.S. Supreme Court’s emergency-docket decision in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, which stayed a district court injunction that limited how ICE could use factors like race, language, and occupation when initiating immigration-related stops in California. Professors Amar and Brownstein argue that Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring justification for the decision is flawed, as it underestimates the constitutional harm of race-based enforcement, lacks sufficient concern for protecting innocent individuals, and fails to meaningfully address the broader ethical and legal implications of using ethnicity and language as proxies for immigration status.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines recent interviews with Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Sonia Sotomayor, focusing primarily on Barrett’s CBS interview and both Justices’ comments on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and the concept of constitutional crisis. Professor Dorf argues that while both Justices attempted to assure the public of the Court’s collegiality and transparency, Justice Barrett in particular revealed troubling contradictions, confusion about fundamental rights, and a lack of urgency in confronting the authoritarian threats posed by the Trump administration.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar explores the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in FCC v. Consumers’ Research, focusing particularly on Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion and its implications for the nondelegation doctrine and the separation of powers. Professor Amar argues that while Kavanaugh makes several insightful points defending executive discretion and the use of “intelligible principles,” his reasoning on independent agencies, Article II implications, and national security exceptions lacks nuance and requires further elaboration to be convincing.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and professor emeritus Alan Brownstein explore the long-standing and increasingly pressing conflict within First Amendment jurisprudence between the Free Exercise Clause, which often justifies special accommodation for religious expression, and the Free Speech Clause, which prohibits viewpoint discrimination by the government. Professors Amar and Brownstein argue that recent federal policies privileging religious expression—particularly in political and workplace contexts—risk violating core free speech principles by distorting democratic processes and creating inequities between religious and secular voices, a dilemma the Supreme Court can no longer avoid addressing.

As most folks paying attention this year appreciate, President Donald Trump has been issuing Executive Orders that, taken as a whole, seem unprecedented in their number, scope, and constitutional aggressiveness. Federal courts, in which the lion’s share of the legal challenges to these Orders have been filed, have been playing catch up in this regulatory-blitzkrieg…

Illinois Law professor Steven D. Schwinn critiques the Supreme Court’s recent emergency-docket rulings that, without explanation, allow the Trump administration to remove independent agency officials, potentially dismantling key regulatory bodies, while disregarding a foundational 1935 precedent supporting the autonomy of such agencies. Professor Schwinn argues that by acting without transparency or justification, the Court undermines the constitutional balance of powers, weakens congressional authority, and damages its own legitimacy and credibility.

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.