Vet Bills and the EU Charter

Over the past decade, concerns about rising veterinary costs and their impact on animal welfare have sparked growing debate across Europe and North America. In the EU, veterinary pricing is largely unregulated, leading to significant variation in costs and transparency across Member States – prompting scrutiny from competition authorities in countries like the UK, the Netherlands, and Sweden. If Charter rights, particularly Article 37 on sustainability, are to carry real weight in relation to animals, the current state of the veterinary market in Europe warrants closer examination.

Reforming the GDPR

After a surge of new digital legislation over the past two years, the European Commission appears to have no intention of easing its pace in reshaping Europe’s regulatory landscape. This includes proposals to reform the GDPR. Regulatory reforms should, however, focus on strengthening enforcement and fixing the structural problems of the GDPR, rather than merely simplifying and deregulating it.

A Differentiated Path Forward

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ (IACtHR) Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 on the “Climate Emergency and Human Rights” represents a transformative moment in international legal doctrine on climate-induced displacement and shows why the IACtHR’s conclusions constitute not merely an incremental development, but a fundamental reorientation of the human rights law approach to one of the most pressing challenges of our time.

Silencing Children’s Rights

The U.S. Supreme Court decided Mahmoud v. Taylor on June 27, 2025. In doing so, it dramatically expanded parental rights over students and education without concern for the rights of children or consideration of pedagogy and curriculum. Instead of addressing the plurality of views around sexual orientation and gender, the Court indirectly, but unsubtly, installs a traditional values framework that imposes norms of heterosexuality, religious fundamentalism and parental micromanagement of curriculum.

Judicial Acquiescence to Presidential Immigration

Mahmoud Khalil, Kilmar Ábrego García, and Rumeysa Ozturk are just a few of the people against whom the second Trump Administration has openly engaged in alarming forms of immigration enforcement. There is an underappreciated way in which the Supreme Court has defanged the judiciary’s systemic ability to confront the executive branch’s illegal immigration behavior: It has failed to draw on U.S. administrative law. In doing so, it has diminished a vital structural judicial check on presidential power – one that lower courts, and even a future Supreme Court, may find increasingly difficult to deploy.

Von der Leyen Faces the Vote

On July 10, 2025, the European Parliament votes on a motion of censure against Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and her entire College of Commissioners. The pending vote against von der Leyen provides a compelling case study for examining the evolving role of the censure motion as both a legal instrument of accountability and a political tool for inter-institutional dialogue. While the motion's immediate prospects for success remain minimal, its deployment illuminates fundamental questions about democratic legitimacy, institutional loyalty, and the constitutional evolution of EU governance structures towards a post-Lisbon parliamentary democracy’s logic.

A Blueprint for Rights-Based Climate Action

On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued Advisory Opinion No. 32—the most important and progressive document yet released by an international court on the climate crisis. The IACtHR’s findings are as comprehensive as they are groundbreaking, spanning areas from procedural requirements for mitigation measures to the protection of environmental defenders. This post launches a blog symposium on the advisory opinion and discusses ten key takeaways, chosen to illustrate the opinion’s legal and practical significance.

The Liberal Litigation Trap

The progressive legal movement faces a harsh reality: its reliance on federal courts has become a strategic liability in an era of conservative judicial dominance. Rather than continue on its current path or abandon impact litigation entirely, liberal cause lawyers should embrace “resistance through restraint” – tactically starving conservative appellate courts of cases while redirecting their energy toward democratic organizing, state-level advocacy, and defensive litigation.

Trump’s Final Frontier?

Trump nominated Emil Bove III, a former attorney of his, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Bove nomination signals a turn away from the Federalist Society, the signature institution of the conservative legal movement. With it, the radical forces of the New Right movement are now making inroads into the inherently conservative judiciary. This is a development that could be a key step in consolidating Trump's power.

A Legal Scalpel Instead of an Axe

Hungary appears to be assuming the role of a Trojan horse in the European Union, advancing the interests of foreign powers. Of particular concern is Hungary’s conduct in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, especially in light of its obstruction of EU sanctions against Russia. Thus far, the EU’s conventional instruments have proven insufficient in curbing Hungary’s veto strategy. For this reason, I propose a path that is both legally feasible and politically realistic: a reinterpretation of Article 7 TEU that would allow for a targeted use of the instrument.