UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin reviews the documentary Marcial Maciel: The Wolf of God, which investigates the life of Marcial Maciel, a powerful Catholic priest and founder of the Legion of Christ, who sexually abused numerous minors over decades with the protection of the Church, including several popes. Professor Griffin points out that the Catholic Church has consistently failed to hold abusive clergy like Maciel accountable, prioritizing institutional power and fundraising over justice for victims, and she calls for a different, more honest approach from current Church leadership.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines President Donald Trump’s current efforts to pressure major law firms and corporations, including Microsoft, to punish individuals he considers personal enemies—often through actions resembling unconstitutional “bills of attainder” that impose penalties without due process. Professor Sarat argues that while big businesses and their leaders possess the influence to resist these authoritarian tactics, they have largely remained silent out of fear, self-interest, or moral weakness, thereby failing to uphold democratic values.

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.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the shift in American political culture, focusing on a moment at Charlie Kirk’s memorial where President Trump publicly embraced hatred for his opponents, contrasting it with calls for forgiveness and unity. Professor Sarat argues that Trump’s unapologetic hatred not only erodes the moral and democratic foundations of the presidency but also threatens to make animosity and division the norm in American society.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf explores whether law firms that settled with the Trump administration by agreeing to provide free services to the government violated the Antideficiency Act, which bars unauthorized voluntary services to federal agencies. Professor Dorf argues that these services are not truly voluntary, as they were made under coercive executive orders, and thus the law firms did not violate the Act—but instead, it is President Trump who broke the law by issuing unconstitutional orders targeting political enemies.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton explores the intersection of free speech, political overreach, and the First Amendment in the context of Donald Trump’s attempts to silence critics like Jimmy Kimmel and suppress damaging information such as the Epstein files. Professor Hamilton argues that despite the Trump administration’s efforts to control narratives and promote its narrow cultural and religious views, the American public’s constitutional right to free expression remains a powerful force that will ultimately expose truth and resist authoritarianism.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses California’s new law, SB 627, which bans masked law enforcement, including federal agents like ICE, from covering their faces in public interactions, and evaluates its constitutional viability under the Supremacy Clause. Professor Amar responds to a public commentary by Berkeley Law professor Erwin Chemerinsky and argues that because SB 627 directly regulates federal officers without clear congressional consent, it is unconstitutional, and as such, California cannot enforce it against federal agents like ICE.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat and attorney Steve Kramer reflect on the national implications of the public reaction to activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination, examining how his death underscores deep social and political divisions, especially in the age of social media. The authors argue that widespread online polarization and knee-jerk reactions are threatening democratic norms, and they urge Americans to pause, reflect, and reclaim empathy and civic responsibility to prevent further societal decline.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton draws parallels between her experience clerking at the U.S. Supreme Court during efforts to undermine Roe v. Wade and the Trump administration’s implementation of its secretive Project 2025 policy agenda. Professor Hamilton argues that, much like the conservative clerk “cabal,” the administration operates through covert, coordinated strategies to impose unpopular ideology without public debate, using authoritarian means to bypass democratic norms.

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.

In this two-part series of columns, Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Anthony Ghiotto examine the growing and troubling practice of assigning military lawyers as prosecutors in federal courts and judges in immigration proceedings, viewing it within the broader pattern of militarization in civilian life under the Trump administration. Professors Wexler and Ghiotto argue that this practice erodes crucial norms of civilian control over the military, threatens the legitimacy of the civilian justice system, and places military attorneys in ethically precarious roles for which they are often untrained—all of which risk long-term damage to democratic institutions and civil-military boundaries.

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.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton examines the Trump administration’s coverup of former President Trump’s connections to convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, and the broader implications for survivors of child sexual abuse seeking justice. Professor Hamilton argues that the effort to obscure the truth has backfired by mobilizing survivors and the public, underscoring the urgent need for legal reform—particularly the elimination of restrictive statutes of limitations—to ensure survivors can seek justice when they are ready.

In this two-part series of columns, Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Anthony Ghiotto examine the Trump administration’s increasing domestic use of military personnel—particularly military attorneys (JAGs)—to enforce civilian law, highlighting legal concerns surrounding the Posse Comitatus Act. Professors Wexler and Ghiotto argue in Part I that while the use of JAGs as prosecutors and immigration judges may technically be lawful under limited congressional exceptions, it undermines civil-military boundaries and raises serious constitutional and due process concerns.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses President Trump’s efforts to unilaterally alter federal election rules through executive orders, including mandates on voter ID and restrictions on mail-in voting, despite constitutional limits on presidential authority. Professor Sarat argues that these actions not only violate the Constitution’s allocation of election oversight to Congress and the states but also reflect a partisan attempt by Trump to influence the outcome of the 2026 congressional elections.

Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger Citron discusses the evolving state of administrative law in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023–24 term, which significantly curtailed agency power by overturning Chevron deference and bolstering the Major Questions doctrine—referred to by scholars as the “Roberts Court Revolution” (RCR). Professor Citron, a co-author of a new administrative law textbook, reflects on the challenges of capturing these rapid legal changes in academic materials, ultimately presenting a critical stance toward the Court’s recent decisions and expressing concern about the ongoing weakening of the administrative state, especially under President Trump’s second term.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone examine President Trump’s executive order instructing the Department of Justice to prioritize prosecuting flag burning under existing content-neutral laws and considers the constitutional implications under First Amendment jurisprudence. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that while the executive order nominally adheres to constitutional constraints, it potentially raises serious free speech concerns by targeting specific expressive conduct—flag desecration—for prosecution based on its political message, and exposes the lack of clarity and consistency in the Supreme Court’s First Amendment doctrine.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines a recent lawsuit in Arkansas challenging a new law, Act 302, which gives the state's Department of Corrections unchecked discretion to choose between execution by lethal injection or nitrogen hypoxia, without timely notice or legislative guidance. Professor Sarat argues that this vague delegation of power is unconstitutional, violates due process and separation of powers, and adds unnecessary psychological cruelty to death row inmates by keeping them uninformed about how they will be executed.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the FDA’s new limited approval of reformulated COVID-19 vaccines under the leadership of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which restricts access mainly to vulnerable populations and requires off-label prescriptions for others. Professor Dorf argues that this policy reflects RFK Jr.’s selective and anti-establishment brand of libertarianism that distrusts scientific expertise, ultimately resulting in dangerous public health outcomes by prioritizing unproven treatments like Ivermectin over evidence-based vaccines.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat explores the importance of competency in death penalty cases, focusing on whether individuals like Ralph Menzies—who suffer from dementia and cannot comprehend their punishment—should be eligible for execution. Professor Sarat argues that executing cognitively impaired individuals violates the core purpose of punishment as a form of moral accountability, and calls for shifting the legal burden onto the state to prove competency in such cases to prevent unjust and inhumane executions.