UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar, professor emeritus Alan Brownstein, and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone analyze the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Umphress v. Hall, a case involving a Texas judge’s federal lawsuit seeking protection from disciplinary action for refusing to perform same-sex marriages based on religious beliefs. In this second of a two-part series of columns on that case, the authors argue that judges who perform marriages act as state actors and therefore must adhere to the constitutional mandates of equality and due process. They further explain that allowing religious-based discrimination in such roles undermines the core principles established in Obergefell v. Hodges and related equal protection jurisprudence.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar, professor emeritus Alan Brownstein, and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone analyze the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Umphress v. Hall, a case involving a Texas judge who challenged potential disciplinary action for conducting only opposite-sex weddings based on religious beliefs. In this first of a two-part series of columns on that case, the authors focus on the threshold justiciability matters presented in the case, arguing that it serves as a valuable teaching tool for understanding overlapping legal doctrines such as standing, ripeness, and abstention. The authors critique the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning on enforcement threat assessments and point out doctrinal confusion surrounding facial versus as-applied constitutional challenges.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat explores the paradoxical status of the death penalty in California, highlighting its high number of death row inmates and new sentences despite a moratorium on executions and a progressive stance. Professor Sarat contrasts this with Texas’s declining death penalty numbers, emphasizing the complex political landscape in California where local prosecutors and public opinion continue to support capital punishment, creating challenges for abolitionists trying to effect change.

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman has put together an “Advent Calendar” project sharing daily facts about Texas’s policies and statistics related to maternal and child welfare. Through 25 data points covering topics like maternal mortality, teen pregnancy, healthcare access, and abortion restrictions, Professor Grossman argues that Texas’s claims of being “pro-life” are contradicted by its poor performance on maternal and child health metrics and its restrictive policies that harm women and children.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Supreme Court’s decision to hear a case that could expand the use of DNA evidence in capital punishment cases, focusing on Ruben Gutierrez’s appeal in Texas. Professor Sarat argues that the Court should allow Gutierrez to challenge Texas’s restrictions on post-conviction DNA testing, asserting that such limitations in death penalty cases across the country hinder the pursuit of justice and should be reconsidered.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the Supreme Court’s handling of the Texas v. United States case involving a controversial Texas immigration law, using it as an example of the broader issue of increased polarization and chaos in the federal court system due to the courts’ expanding “shadow docket.” Professor Dorf argues that while both political parties bear some responsibility for this polarization, Republicans have moved much further from centrism, contributing more to the acute political divide that has spread to the courts and is exemplified by the Texas Republicans’ extreme stance on immigration in this case.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the execution of Ivan Cantu in Texas, using it as a case study to explore the broader issue of innocent individuals being executed in the United States. Professor Sarat argues that the continued use of the death penalty inevitably leads to the execution of innocent people, underscoring the urgent need to abolish capital punishment to prevent such irreversible injustices.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the effect and implications of Texas’s SB8 law and Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) on federal law and the judiciary. Professor Dorf argues that both laws employ a strategy to circumvent federal court review, but suggests there may be growing recognition among Supreme Court Justices of the dangers posed by such laws, which seek to undermine federal authority and judicial review.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses a recent legal battle over Texas’s placement of buoys and barriers in the Rio Grande River to deter migrants, a move ruled likely unlawful by Federal District Judge David Ezra. Professor Dorf criticizes Texas’s subsequent emergency stay appeal, argues that the state’s legal justifications are implausible and undermine federal supremacy, and suggests that the state is improperly attempting to sidestep federal authority on issues of national security and immigration.

Stanford Law visiting professor Joanna L. Grossman discusses the legal landscape surrounding abortion rights in Texas, tracing its development from the Roe v. Wade decision to recent state laws that severely limit abortion access. Professor Grossman explains how a recent lawsuit challenging the Texas law’s enforcement against physicians whose good-faith judgment determines the pregnant person has an emergent medical condition requiring abortion care demonstrates that abortion bans have changed the way obstetrical care is practiced across the board.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on a recent decision by a federal district judge in Texas holding that a for-profit corporation was entitled to an exception from the legal obligation to provide employees with health insurance covering pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), which protections against infection with HIV/AIDS. Professor Dorf explains the absurdity of the court’s conclusion, which is based on an extension of the Supreme Court’s dubious logic in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman describes the current status of abortion rights and access in Texas in light of the “Roe trigger ban” taking effect today, August 25, 2022. Professor Grossman explains the history of abortion in Texas and highlights the inhumanity of a law that prefers to let a pregnant woman die when a safe medical procedure would have saved her life, rather than permit her to terminate a pregnancy, even a non-viable one, unless she is on the brink of death or substantial bodily impairment.

Cornell Law professor Joseph Margulies comments on two seemingly unrelated concerns expressed by readers: the policy of a local sheriff in Florida to publish mugshots of juveniles who have been charged with a felony, and the oppressively hot conditions of prison cells in Texas. Professor Margulies explains that both of these problems are products of an unforgiving society that insists on differentiating people into “us” versus “them.”

Cornell Law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on the recent arrest by Texas law enforcement officers of a woman who allegedly self-induced an abortion. Although the local district attorney’s office announced that there would be no murder prosecution, Professor Colb points out that the arrest itself exposes the impact of religious fanaticism on the law.

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman describes the American child welfare system and argues that Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s attempt to weaponize state child abuse law against trans children and their parents is grossly unconstitutional. Professor Grossman points out that the child welfare system gives parents broad discretion to make medical decisions for their children, and a state cannot simply decide that a particular type of medical treatment constitutes child abuse because it is politically opposed to it.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat argues that the Texas Supreme Court has consistently advanced a “mean-spirited” version of federalism that is the antithesis of what the Founders wanted. Professor Sarat points out that the mean-spiritedness was on display when the Texas legislature enacted S.B. 8, which does not allow legal abortions in cases of rape or incest, and when the state supreme court upheld the enforcement of that law.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf explains why the concern expressed by Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent in the Texas abortion case (Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson) that other states will follow Texas’s example and employ “private bounty hunters” is well founded and legitimate.

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments on the abortion cases currently before the U.S. Supreme Court—one challenge a restrictive Texas abortion law and another challenge to a plainly unconstitutional Mississippi law. Professor Grossman argues that safe-haven laws—which Justice Amy Coney Barrett in particular asked about during her line of questioning in oral argument—play no role in the law or policy of abortion.

In light of next week’s oral argument in a high-profile case involving the federal government’s challenge to a restrictive Texas abortion law, Cornell Law professor Sherry F. Colb explains what we can learn from the law’s failure to grant an exception to its near-absolute prohibition against abortion for pregnancies that result from rape or incest. Professor Colb argues that by refusing to permit the women of Texas to terminate pregnancies resulting from rape and by simultaneously allowing lawsuits against those assisting such terminations, the state of Texas deputizes a rapist to forcibly impose an entire pregnancy upon the victim of his choice.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf argues that even the procedural issues presented in the federal government’s challenge to Texas’s restrictive abortion law are high stakes. Professor Dorf argues that the procedural question fundamentally asks whether the U.S. Supreme Court will permit state-sanctioned lawlessness.