Justia’s Verdict

A Sacrifice UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin reviews Dr. Robert Hoatson’s book The Sacrifice of the Masses, which details his experiences as a former Catholic priest turned whistleblower who ex...

I wrote on @justiaverdict.bsky.social about Robert Hoatson's excellent new book on his long work against abuse in the Catholic Church. verdict.justia.com/2025/07/29/a...

The Current Status of Non-Compete Agreements: It’s Complicated Albany Law School professor Meredith R. Miller examines the complex and evolving legal landscape of non-compete agreements in the United States, highlighting how their enforceability varies widely acr...

Prof. Meredith Miller explores the complex state-by-state landscape of non-compete agreements, following the failed federal effort to ban them. She argues that outright bans offer the clearest, fairest solution for both employers and employees.

Epstein, the Headlines, and the Children We Ignore Kathryn Robb, National Director of the Children’s Justice Campaign at Enough Abuse, examines how the media and political frenzy over Jeffrey Epstein’s client list has overshadowed the broader epidemic...

@kathrynrobb.bsky.social argues that media fixation on the Epstein list obscures America's child sexual abuse epidemic. Instead, focus should be on concrete reforms: ending statutes of limitations, banning NDAs in abuse cases, and mandating institutional accountability to protect children.

The Thing Itself Cornell professor Joseph Margulies explains why he chooses not to follow the daily outrages of the Trump administration, instead focusing on understanding the broader narrative and underlying forces t...

Joseph Margulies explains why he eschews daily political outrage to seek more profound understanding. He argues for crafting a comprehensive narrative that explains our moment—accounting for economic transformation, demographic shifts, and the decline of white hegemony.

Musings on the Supreme Court’s Handling of its Emergency (“Shadow”) Docket, and Other, Related Procedural Shortcomings in the Court’s Work in the 2024-25 Term UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar examines the Supreme Court’s increasing reliance on expedited “shadow docket” cases and preliminary injunction appeals that bypass normal procedural safeguards...

Prof. Vik Amar examines #SCOTUS expanded use of expedited procedures. He argues rushed "shadow docket" cases and preliminary injunction appeals compromise judicial reasoning and legitimacy, particularly given the Court's inconsistent approach to resolving merits on incomplete records

Will Anybody Save Federal Reserve Independence? Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines President Trump’s threats to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell over Powell’s refusal to lower interest rates amid economic uncertainty from Trump’...

Fed Chair Jerome Powell faces pressure from President Trump to lower interest rates, but @dorfonlaw.bsky.social argues Powell's caution is warranted and suggests that market forces may ultimately constrain presidential overreach.

No Exit: There’s Been Talk of Secession; Could It Occur Nowadays? Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger Citron examines whether Americans should be concerned about the prospect of secession in today’s politically polarized climate, compili...

Four law professors debate whether secession could happen in modern America. While most agree geographic realities make state secession unlikely, author @rodgerdcitron.bsky.social explores how "soft secession" through sanctuary cities and nullification may already be occurring.

The Roberts Court Puts a Velvet Glove on the Iron Fist of Anti-Trans Backlash Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Skrmetti upholding Tennessee’s SB1 law banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors. Professor D...

In my new column on @justiaverdict.bsky.social I say the SCOTUS ruling upholding Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors avoided the harshest anti-trans rhetoric, but in treating the ban as a good-faith effort to protect health and ensure informed consent, the Court sanitized bigotry. 👇

Golden Dome is the Worst Star Wars Sequel Ever Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf critiques President Donald Trump’s proposed “Golden Dome” missile defense system, positioning it as a modern sequel to Reagan’s failed “Star Wars” initiative, and...

Ronald Reagan proposed a missile defense system that came to be called Star Wars. It was expensive, impractical, and a violation of a treaty then in force. Trump has proposed Golden Dome--a Star Wars sequel so bad it should feature Jar Jar Binks. Details in my column for @justiaverdict.bsky.social 👇

Justice Kagan’s Provocative but Problematic Assertions in Trump v. Wilcox that Effectively Treat Presidents Like Lower Federal Judges with Regard to a Duty to Follow Past Supreme Court Precedent 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 offi...

Professors Vik Amar and Jason Mazzone examine Justice Kagan’s dissent in Trump v. Wilcox, challenging her critique of presidential overreach and arguing that constitutional disobedience by the President can be a legitimate means of bringing outdated precedent before the Court for reconsideration.

Stephen, Go to Prison Cornell professor Joseph Margulies critiques Stephen Miller’s advocacy for reopening Alcatraz as a symbolic place to isolate and permanently segregate violent offenders, using it as a lens to explore....

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies challenges Stephen Miller's call to reopen Alcatraz, arguing that true justice requires recognizing the potential for redemption among incarcerated individuals—something Miller overlooks in favor of fear and exclusion.

@ldadorg.bsky.social

The President’s Orders Targeting Law Firms as Unconstitutional Bills of Attainder—Damning Lessons from the Past Guest columnist Gary J. Simson—Macon Chair in Law at Mercer Law School and Professor Emeritus at Cornell Law School—critiques executive orders issued by President Donald Trump that punish specific law...

Guest columnist Gary J. Simson argues that President Trump’s executive orders penalizing certain law firms mirror unconstitutional bills of attainder, warning they undermine core principles of justice and the rule of law. A Supreme Court reckoning may be necessary.

The Justice Who May Have Been Too Smart for the Job 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...

Professor @rodgerdcitron.bsky.social reflects on Justice David Souter’s legacy and suggests that Souter‘s intellectual rigor and nuanced opinions in cases like Twombly and Mead, though admirable, may have unintentionally limited their long-term impact on the law.

Yes, More Souters, Please 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....

Cornell Law professor @dorfonlaw.bsky.social reflects on Justice David Souter’s legacy, arguing that Souter embodied a principled, traditional conservatism rooted in judicial restraint—offering a stark contrast to today’s ideologically driven Supreme Court appointments.

34 out of 35 Scholars Agree: Trump is a Lawless Authoritarian Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf evaluates the constitutional and legal abuses committed by Donald Trump during his second term as president, based on a New York Times survey of 35 legal scholars...

A very brief🧵: A recent NY Times article reports on a survey of 35 scholars (including me) asking about the worst excesses of the Trump administration thus far. I discuss the article in my latest column for @justiaverdict.bsky.social. Here's my column. 👇

Just Say No to “Catholic Public” School 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,....

@lcgriffin.bsky.social dissects this week's #SCOTUS oral argument in OK Charter School Board and argues that approving publicly funded religious charter schools—like Oklahoma's St. Isidore—violates the Establishment Clause and threatens religious neutrality in public education.

Can Judges in Texas Discriminate Against Same-Sex Couples in Solemnizing Marriages? Part Two in a Two-Part Series on the Fifth Circuit’s Umphress v. Hall Case 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 Texa...

Profs Vik Amar, Alan Brownstein, and Jason Mazzone analyze a TX judge's challenge to disciplinary rules after refusing to officiate same-sex marriages. They contend that religious beliefs cannot justify discrimination in the exercise of public authority.

Why the Arrest of Judge Dugan in Wisconsin Does not Necessarily Constitute an Illegitimate Attack on the Judiciary by the Trump Administration UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses concerns about constitutional violations by the Trump administration and examines claims that the arrest of Wisconsin state judge Hannah Dugan fits i...

Vik Amar argues that while the Trump administration has rightly been criticized for attacks on judicial independence, Judge Hannah Dugan’s arrest for allegedly obstructing federal immigration enforcement stands on firmer constitutional ground.

Judge Wilkinson’s Dualist Opinion in Abrego Garcia v. Noem: Judicial Review of Executive Branch Action in a Transformative Time Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger D. Citron examines Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson’s recent Fourth Circuit ruling in the deportation case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, situating....

As @rodgerdcitron.bsky.social explains, Judge Wilkinson’s opinion in the Abrego Garcia case highlights the judiciary’s pivotal role in resisting executive overreach during a potential constitutional transformation, reflecting Bruce Ackerman’s theory of dualist democracy.

Fighting the Last (Trade) War: Trump Ignores the Coming AI Revolution Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf critiques the Trump administration’s tariff policies and broader economic strategy, arguing that they are misguided in the face of rapidly advancing technology, p...

My latest column for @justiaverdict.bsky.social argues that even if Trump's tariffs boost U.S. manufacturing (a very big "if"), they won't create many jobs. His effort to restore a 19th century economy leaves us woefully unprepared for the disruptive force of AI in the 21st century. 👇

The Transgender Military Ban: Part II: Collateral Consequences for Mental Health Access and Lessons for Future Litigants In this second of a two-part series, Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Anthony Ghiotto examine the broader implications of the Trump administration’s attempt to ban transgender individuals....

Illinois Law professors Lesley Wexler and @tonyghiotto.bsky.social analyze the broader fallout of the transgender military ban, examining its chilling effect on mental health care across the armed forces and the legal precedents it sets for future challenges to executive authority over the military.

The Transgender Military Ban: Part I: District Court Rejection of Deference and Secretary of Defense Hegseth’s Rejection of Judge Reyes Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Anthony Ghiotto examine recent judicial rulings halting the enforcement of a Trump administration executive order banning transgender individuals from mili...

Thankful to @justiaverdict.bsky.social for supporting and publishing Part I of our deep dive of the litigation involving Trump’s bad of transgender service members

verdict.justia.com/2025/04/07/t...

United States Attorney for The District of Columbia Shows What Weaponized Justice Really Looks Like Amherst professor Austin Sarat critiques the nomination of Edward Martin as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, examining how his conduct exemplifies what critics call the “weaponization” of t...

Amherst prof Austin Sarat argues that Edward Martin's nomination as U.S. Attorney for D.C. raises serious concerns about the politicization of federal law enforcement due to his record of partisan prosecutions, and he calls on the Senate not to confirm Martin.

Is House Speaker Mike Johnson’s Proposal to Eliminate Federal Judgeships Constitutional? 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 ad...

House Speaker Mike Johnson proposed eliminating one or more federal district courts to block rulings against the Trump administration. Is that constitutional? In my latest column for @justiaverdict.bsky.social I discuss two 19th precedents and why they shouldn't be given weight today. 👇

Important Developments in the White House and in the Fifth Circuit’s Wetzel Case Make More Likely (and More Important) Supreme Court Resolution of What Federal “Election Day” Means UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone address the Fifth Circuit’s refusal to rehear a case challenging a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked...

Profs Vik Amar and Jason Mazzone critique 5th Circuit denial of rehearing en banc in a case on counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day and question the legal basis for an EO enforcing stricter deadlines. The authors argue for preserving state flexibility and urge #SCOTUS review.

Social Security is Essential, Efficient (Gasp!), and Definitely NOT a Ponzi Scheme: Part Two of Two In this second of a two-part series of columns discussing Donald Trump and Republicans’ efforts to dismantle Social Security, University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchana...

In this second of a two-part series, Professor Neil Buchanan exposes how Republican leaders—despite public denials—are actively undermining Social Security through disinformation, administrative sabotage, and privatization efforts that threaten the economic security of millions of Americans.

Social Security is Essential, Efficient (Gasp!), and Definitely NOT a Ponzi Scheme: Part One of Two University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan addresses the Trump administration’s attacks on Social Security, particularly through cutting the budget to force the system...

Professor Neil Buchanan exposes the false claim that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and explains how the program is financially sustainable. He warns that political attacks and misinformation could undermine one of America's most successful social programs.

Trump’s Justice Department Plays Dirty Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines the Trump administration’s apparent disregard for judicial authority, focusing on its defiance of a court order prohibiting the use of the Alien Enemies....

Cornell Law Professor @dorfonlaw.bsky.social explains how the Trump administration's apparent defiance of a federal court order on deportations seriously threatens judicial authority and constitutional democracy.

Schumer Was (Unfortunately) Right, But Either Way, the Infighting Must Stop University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s decision to avert a government shutdown by supporting a controversial conti...

Prof Neil Buchanan argues that Chuck Schumer's decision to prevent a government shutdown was the least bad option because a shutdown would have strengthened Trump’s power