Federal courts have an important role to play in enforcing laws against powerful figures who defy them. But the options available to federal courts are simultaneously too limited, weak, and dangerous for us to rely on them to the exclusion of everything else.
Given the anti-democratic corporate form of all private and many public universities, appeals to “shared governance” cannot succeed in wresting power from the academy’s autocrats. Instead, American universities must be reincorporated in accordance with the principles of democratic republicanism.
The current constitutional crisis offers a new picture of what legitimate government looks like: rule by the boss, where professional civil servants become at-will employees, the threat of prosecution is just another bargaining chip, and statutory, constitutional, and ethical restraints are treated as tokens in a sucker’s game.
What use is the rule of law in assessing the Trump administration’s assertions of executive power? To answer this question, we need to clarify our understanding of its value — and more specifically, how this value relates to democracy and constitutionalism.
In the embers of the Supreme Court’s disastrous Grants Pass decision, a new form of necessity doctrine offers a ray of light. If private property owners’ exclusionary rights are meaningfully threatened, might the political will for ending homelessness and food insecurity finally emerge?
When it’s time to rebuild from the wreckage of the Trump-Musk rampage, the left may have the opportunity to implement a truly transformative agenda. However, unless we have relatively detailed proposals ready in advance, we will lose out to those who merely want to reproduce what came before.
By removing Gwynne Wilcox from her seat on the National Labor Relations Board, Trump has left the Board without a quorum and thus unable to act. In doing so, he may have unwittingly opened up space for states and cities to regulate conduct that previously fell within the Board’s jurisdiction.
Trump’s executive order is not merely unconstitutional. It is an effort to perpetrate the very evils that abolitionists and Republicans sought to eradicate from our constitutional order.
If the recent past is no longer a useful guide to seeking change in the present, what good is policy-adjacent scholarship?
This past Friday, the Supreme Court granted cert in a case that concerns the first religious charter school in the United States. But this case is not merely about school choice or religious freedom — it also reflects a broader contest over how law structures public responsibility and private power.
One in three Americans has a debt that has been handed over to a collection agency. Lawmakers continue to throw credit at the problem and punish borrowers when they struggle to repay. To escape this cycle, we need an approach to debt relief based on the principle of human dignity, a foundational concept in human rights law.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous affirmation of the TikTok Ban reveals a dangerous weakness in the First Amendment: its failure to protect against government repression that targets the economic infrastructure of speech, rather than speech itself — precisely the kind of repression that is likely to be a hallmark of the second Trump presidency.
Trumpist unity is largely a fiction conjured by the Democratic Party in a naïve attempt at “defending democracy.” A robust opposition must seek and target wedges within the Trump coalition, pitting conservatism’s component parts against one another.
Tenant unions, unlike labor unions, operate without extensive federal, state, or local legislative schemes governing their form and behavior. This does not mean, however, that they are unaffected by the law. By looking at tenant unions at work in Kansas City, Chicago, and New York City, we can see the different ways in which law influences their form, tactics, and strategies to scale advocacy.
An increasing number of universities want to restrict their leaders from speaking about issues of public concern. This push for “neutrality” is a key piece of a broader conservative campaign to suppress speech that conservatives don’t like. It also offers a lesson about what we can expect of powerful institutions in the second Trump era.
