Robert Bork’s America is Becoming Donald Trump’s America

7/15/19  //  Commentary

As President Trump puts additional judges on the federal courts for life and continues his own extreme policies, Bork’s America is coming to life more and more as Trump’s America.

Elliot Mincberg

People For the American Way

Constitutional Blindspot: How The Roberts Court Is Betraying Our Democracy

7/1/19  //  Commentary

The Roberts Court has a constitutional blindspot. It consistently ignores the many parts of the Constitution that help preserve and protect a vibrant democracy open to all.

Gundy, Raich, and Faustian Bargains

6/26/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

In Gundy, the liberal justices' desire to protect the administrative state led them to uphold an exceedingly punitive law. But this was a bad bargain. The conservatives will still reinvigorate the non-delegation doctrine, and a terrible law will still remain on the books.

Gregory Lipper

Clinton & Peed

Courting Disaster: Progressive Candidates’ Reticence on Judicial Nominations

6/25/19  //  Commentary

Will progressive candidates for national office be asked about judicial nominations and will these candidates make the federal judiciary a top-tier message? On paper at least, there are reasons to think progressive candidates will get it right this time.

Two Recent Decisions Confirm the Pivotal Role of Trump-Appointed Judges

6/25/19  //  Commentary

In two divided decisions issued one day in late June, the Supreme Court came awfully close to rewriting the law in two different areas that could have produced devastating consequences for all Americans

Elliot Mincberg

People For the American Way

John Roberts the Institutionalist?

6/22/19  //  Commentary

If his decision to join the dissent in Gundy v. United States is any sign of things to come, John Roberts the institutionalist has left the building

Gillian Metzger

Columbia Law School

Legitimacy and the Supreme Court

6/19/19  //  Commentary

It is illegitimate to consider legitimacy. So say many conservatives who seem terrified that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. might care about public perception of the U.S. Supreme Court. But they are wrong.

Stephen Vladeck

University of Texas

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School

Joshua Matz

Publisher

Why a Loss for the House in Court Last Week Wasn’t All Bad News

6/14/19  //  Commentary

Although Judge McFadden made clear that he did not need to decide whether the House has standing to enforce subpoenas, what he said nonetheless strongly suggests that he would conclude that they do

Brianne J. Gorod

Constitutional Accountability Center

Why the Spotlight On Chief Justice Roberts May Soon Be Brighter—and Why That Matters

6/13/19  //  Commentary

Chief Justice Roberts would preside over any impeachment trial of President Trump. Here's why that matters.

Brianne J. Gorod

Constitutional Accountability Center

Versus Trump: Bet You Can't Untie This Knot

6/13/19  //  Uncategorized

This week on Versus Trump, Jason, Charlie, and Easha discuss a decision undoing the Trump Administration's new rules that would ban much online gambling. The opinion also leads them into a discussion of the powers of district judges, the Office of Legal Counsel, the Attorney General, and more. Listen now!

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

Easha Anand

San Francisco

Jason Harrow

Equal Citizens

UCI Commencement Speech

6/10/19  //  Quick Reactions

My remarks at the UCI Law commencement.

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School

Versus Trump: Listener Mailbag

6/6/19  //  Commentary

This week on Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie answer listener mail and talk about nationwide injunctions at Gregory's request; talk more about court packing at the request of Micah; and respond to Ben's thoughts on subpoena enforcement. Listen now!

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

Jason Harrow

Equal Citizens

Clarence Thomas's Misplaced Anti-Eugenics Concurrence in the Indiana Abortion Case

5/30/19  //  Commentary

Justice Thomas argues that because some people once favored a legal right to abortion for a bad reason, it should be banned today. That argument is mistaken.

Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law School

The Constitutionality of the 5-5-5 Supreme Court Plan

5/17/19  //  Commentary

It would be constitutional to have a 15-person Supreme Court consisting of five Republican-affiliated justices, five Democratic-affiliated Justices, and five more justices unanimously selected by the first ten from judges of the federal court of appeals for a single-year term

Daniel Epps

Washington University Law School

Ganesh Sitaraman

Vanderbilt Law School

When You Have Five, They Let You Do Whatever You Want

5/14/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

While several of the essays in the edited collection of Reproductive Rights And Justice Stories talk about social movements that have influenced the law, some recent events suggest we should have those discussions without losing our focus on courts themselves

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School