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.
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.
Retired UC Berkeley Law professor Jan Vetter discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in Garland v. Cargill, which invalidated a regulation classifying bump stocks as machine guns, and examines the Court’s approach to statutory interpretation. Professor Vetter argues that the Court’s majority, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, took an overly narrow and literal interpretation of the statute, neglecting to consider legislative intent and the broader purpose of the law, and he suggests that judges should act more as partners with the legislature in interpreting statutes to achieve their intended policy goals.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the case of Richard Glossip, an Oklahoma death row inmate whose conviction has been challenged by the state’s attorney general, and the broader constitutional question of executing innocent people. Professor Sarat argues that the Supreme Court should use Glossip’s case to explicitly state that the Constitution forbids punishing innocent people, overturning previous jurisprudence that prioritized legal technicalities over justice.
In this two-part series of columns, Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger D. Citron examines Chief Justice John Roberts’s leadership of the Supreme Court over multiple terms, focusing on his apparent dual objectives of balancing political attunement and advancing conservative ideology. In this second part, Professor Citron argues that Roberts re-established his control over the Court by successfully weakening the administrative state and expanding presidential immunity while simultaneously avoiding controversial decisions on gun rights and reproductive issues, ultimately demonstrating his ability to push a conservative agenda without incurring significant political backlash.
In this two-part series of columns, Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger D. Citron examines Chief Justice John Roberts’s leadership of the Supreme Court over multiple terms, focusing on his apparent dual objectives of balancing political attunement and advancing conservative ideology. In this first part, Professor Citron highlights Roberts’s judicial statesmanship in the 2019-20 term, particularly in cases involving Trump administration subpoenas, and contrasts this with the 2021-22 term, where the Court’s conservative shift raised questions about Roberts' control, especially following the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses recent proposals for Supreme Court reform in the United States, including term limits for Justices, ethics rules, and jurisdiction stripping. Professor Sarat argues that such reforms are justified and necessary in light of the Court’s current conservative majority and controversial decisions, emphasizing that court reform has historical precedent and should not be feared despite potential challenges.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s newly published book Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law and his recent public statements criticizing excessive regulation. Professor Sarat argues that despite Gorsuch’s attempts to present himself as a champion of ordinary Americans, his judicial record and conservative stance on federal regulations suggest that his book’s message should be viewed skeptically, as reduced regulation often benefits powerful interests at the expense of workers, the disabled, and environmental protection.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and professor emeritus Alan E. Brownstein discuss the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. United States regarding presidential immunity, drawing parallels to the Court’s interpretation of state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Professors Amar and Brownstein argue that in both cases, the Court has ignored the original public meaning of the Constitution, compromising the rule of law by allowing government officials to escape accountability for unlawful acts, while noting that the vagueness in the Trump decision may leave room for future refinement of the immunity framework.
