The Law of Lawlessness
A Recap of Supreme Court’s Last Term
Articles for category: Spotlight
The Constitution’s Midnight
Resolving some legal issues requires drawing a line through a gray area. Others can be resolved without having to draw a line, in recognition of an old insight: that there is a dawn and a dusk does not mean there is no noon or no midnight. Whether the President had power under the Constitution to attack Iran without congressional approval is an issue that falls in the latter category, within the Constitution’s midnight: wherever a line might be drawn in harder cases, this is not one of them.
Academic Freedom Mugged
The forced resignation of James Ryan from the presidency of the University of Virginia by pressure from a politically motivated U.S. Department of Justice, abetted by his opponents within the school, deals a dangerous blow to institutional academic freedom both at UVA and at every public university. Of course, universities must abide by federal civil rights laws as interpreted by courts. But Ryan’s antagonists pursue a radical reorientation of higher education away from most forms of increasing opportunities for disadvantaged students.
U.S. Attacks on Iran
Israel and the United States attacked Iran in mid-June 2025 with the aim of ending its nuclear program. Iran counter-attacked. While some world leaders justified what Israel and the U.S. were doing, they did so in line with political deterrence theory, not the plain terms of the United Nations Charter. The lawful use of force in self-defense depends on an armed attack occurring. Concerns over nuclear weapons are to be resolved through treaties and negotiations. Honoring deterrence theory over the law is undermining the surest path to peace.
From Erosion to Evisceration
Last week, the Supreme Court decided the case United States v. Skrmetti. As Ryan Thoreson has argued on this blog, the Court’s opinion rolls back existing understandings of sex discrimination in ways that will likely play out in future cases. Building on that insight, I examine how the Court narrows what counts as sex discrimination and strips the concept of stereotypes of its constitutional force. The most troubling aspects of the decision, however, appear in concurrences written by the ultraconservative members of the Court, which confine the reach of equal protection to formal legal classifications alone.
The Erosion of Equal Protection
In United States v. Skrmetti, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 along ideological lines to uphold a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, reaching that conclusion by construing equal protection jurisprudence in regressive ways. The majority reasoned that the law not only did not discriminate on the basis of sex, but did not discriminate on the basis of transgender status either. This post explains how the Skrmetti decision threatens to narrow the scope of constitutional equality protections in the United States, why it is dangerous for the equality claims of women and lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, and why it is likely to be so damaging for transgender people targeted by state and federal lawmakers in recent years.
The Agonies of American Federalism
Understanding the Los Angeles Conflict in a Historical Frame
Troops in L.A.
This past weekend, President Donald Trump issued a presidential memorandum that federalized National Guard troops and deployed those troops alongside active-duty marines in response to protests against his aggressive immigration enforcement operations in Los Angeles. While framed as a response to violence, the order also addresses peaceful protest. The decision to send military forces against civilians engaged in protected First Amendment activity marks a dangerous escalation, raising serious legal and constitutional concerns.
The Nondelegation Case Against Trump’s New Travel Ban
Donald Trump has imposed the second travel ban of his presidential history. Despite the enormous harm it is likely to cause, many assume there is no effective way to challenge it in court. The Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) – addressing Trump’s first-term “Muslim ban” – probably precludes challenges based on discriminatory intent. Nonetheless, there is an alternative path to striking down the new travel ban: the nondelegation doctrine. This doctrine sets limits to Congress’s delegation of legislative authority to the executive.
Power, Profit, and Washington’s Paradox
The Trump administration has been accused of corruptly placing private financial benefit above the public interest, most recently in President Trump’s acceptance of the gift of a Boeing 747 from Qatar for his use as Air Force 1, and invitations to dinner at a private club and to a private White House tour, offered as perks for those who invested substantial sums in his Stablecoin. Although, here, the President’s self-enrichment is blatant, more troubling are his policies aimed at dismantling safeguards against corruption at home and abroad. These reveal a deep contradiction in the warring goals of those currently governing in Washington; a contradiction that may eventually burst into the open.
