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.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses President Joe Biden’s recent proposals for Supreme Court reform, including a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision on presidential immunity, term limits for Justices, and a binding ethics code. Professor Sarat notes that while these proposals mark a significant shift in Biden’s stance on Court reform, they stop short of embracing Court packing, which Professor Sarat suggests may be the most far-reaching response to the perceived crisis in the Supreme Court and the threat its conservative majority poses to democracy and the rule of law.

In this second of a two-part series, arbitrator and mediator Barry Winograd continues to explore the challenges in interpreting the transportation worker exemption under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and proposes a solution. Mr. Winograd suggests that courts should look to established labor and employment laws, such as the National Labor Relations Act, Railway Labor Act, and Fair Labor Standards Act, for guidance in determining who qualifies as a transportation worker, rather than relying on vague qualifiers created by the courts.

In this first of a two-part series, arbitrator and mediator Barry Winograd examines the Supreme Court's recent decision in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries and its impact on the interpretation of the transportation worker exemption under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Mr. Winograd argues that the Court’s current approach to determining who qualifies as a transportation worker has led to increasing uncertainty and inefficiency in litigation, potentially transforming the FAA from a procedural statute into a de facto substantive employment law.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the recent impeachment articles filed by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez against Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, providing historical context for impeachment of Supreme Court Justices and examining the specific allegations against Alito and Thomas. Professor Sarat argues that while the impeachment is unlikely to succeed, it is justified given the Justices’ ethical transgressions, and it serves as an important condemnation of their conduct and a reminder of the need to uphold democratic principles and the integrity of the Supreme Court.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the recent Supreme Court decision in Trump v. United States and its implications for presidential immunity and the rule of law in America. Professor Sarat argues that the decision “will live in infamy” and marks a dangerous shift towards authoritarianism by effectively placing the President above the law, contradicting fundamental constitutional principles and previous statements made by the Justices themselves.

University of Chicago law professor emeritus Albert W. Alschuler discusses the Supreme Court’s recent rulings in United States v. Rahimi and New York State Pistol and Rifle Association v. Bruen, focusing on their approach to interpreting the Second Amendment through historical analogues. Professor Alschuler argues that the Court’s reliance on irrelevant historical examples while disregarding relevant history is flawed, and that the Bruen standard is neither originalist nor workable, predicting that it will eventually be abandoned in favor of a more flexible approach that allows for some degree of interest balancing in Second Amendment cases.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses key cases from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 Term, focusing on cases where the Court made non-merits decisions and cases with high stakes beyond their precedential value. Professor Dorf argues that the Court’s procedural dismissals in significant cases like those involving social media content moderation and abortion access led to public confusion and missed opportunities to clarify important legal questions, while its rulings in high-stakes cases such as those involving former President Donald Trump had immediate and far-reaching consequences that sometimes overshadowed their legal precedents.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the media's coverage of Supreme Court decisions, particularly focusing on the end-of-term rulings and their interpretation by journalists. Professor Amar argues that many prominent media organizations consistently misrepresent the Court’s actions by drawing incorrect conclusions from decisions not to review cases or dismissals, misinterpreting jurisdictional rulings as judgments on the merits, and making unfounded predictions about case outcomes, thus failing to meet basic standards of accuracy in legal reporting.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Supreme Court’s recent decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson and its broader approach to Eighth Amendment cases, particularly those involving cruel and unusual punishment. Professor Sarat argues that the Court’s conservative majority, led by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, is systematically weakening Eighth Amendment protections by adhering to a narrow originalist interpretation, ignoring evolving standards of decency, and showing indifference to vulnerable populations like the homeless.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone examine the current term of the U.S. Supreme Court, addressing common criticisms that the Court has become a partisan, far-right institution aggressively pushing a conservative agenda. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that, contrary to these criticisms, the Court’s decisions in the 2023-24 term have not been consistently conservative or partisan, and that many of the high-profile cases were essentially thrust upon the Court rather than actively sought out, suggesting a more nuanced and less ideologically driven approach than critics claim.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent 6-3 decision in Garland v. Cargill, which invalidated a federal regulation banning bump stocks by finding that they do not fall under the statutory definition of a machinegun. Professor Dorf argues that the Justices’ ideological views on gun control, rather than principled differences in interpretive methodology, best explain the divided outcome in this case and many other closely contested Supreme Court cases.