Articles for category: Spotlight

Trump 2.0 as ‘Dual State‘?

Donald Trump’s radicalized efforts to transform US constitutional democracy into personalized executive-centered rule have again generated a predictable avalanche of invocations of Carl Schmitt. Less predictably, recent political commentators have turned to one of Schmitt’s contemporary critics, the mid-century socialist jurist and political scientist, Ernst Fraenkel, claiming that his account of the Nazi “dual state,” in which rule-based normative and discretionary prerogative legal spheres uneasily coexisted, provides a useful template for making sense of Trump 2.0’s highly selective rendition of legal fidelity.

The Legal Authority (or Lack Thereof) for Trump’s Tariffs

The Trump tariffs have increased the average weighted U.S. tariff to 23% – a ten-fold increase from a year ago. Outside observers have been puzzled about how one person, even the U.S. president, has the power to single-handedly enact such sweeping changes to the U.S. and global economy. In fact, President Trump may not – and in my view, does not – have the power to impose most of his tariffs.

The U.S. President’s Electoral Power Play

On March 25, President Trump signed an executive order (EO) purporting to restructure American election administration. The ironically titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections” EO sets out to, among other things, require those registering to vote in federal elections to present documentary proof of citizenship, and threatens to penalize states that accept late arriving ballots (i.e., mail ballots that are sent prior to, yet not received until after, Election Day). The EO has several legal deficiencies and much of it should be invalidated by the federal judiciary.

Gaming Procedure, Gutting Due Process

The Trump administration has admitted that sending Abrego Garcia to a supermax prison in El Salvador known for human rights abuses was an “administrative error” but contends before the U.S. Supreme Court that there is nothing a federal court can do about that. As I shall explain, the Solicitor General’s argument ultimately rests on the claim that the president who frequently boasts about his abilities as a deal maker is a lousy negotiator.

Stopping Autocratic Legalism in America – Before It Is Too Late

President Donald Trump’s recent speech to the Department of Justice was meant as a declaration of war against lawyers. His words made clear that the most effective way to consolidate autocracy is by systematically dismantling the independent centers of power that support a healthy democracy, including the independent public prosecutor. As the Executive Orders targeting law firms underscore: the entire legal profession is next. This is no coincidence.

A Constitutional Crisis? Maybe. A Constitutional Revolution? Likely.

Crisis rhetoric has become pervasive in the United States and Israel, although much of it is a hyperbolic response to the polarization currently dominating these nations’ politics. What seems clearer to us is that a process is underway in both countries that may very well culminate in a constitutional revolution. Such a development might or might not be deemed crisis-worthy, but it would mean that something profoundly significant had changed in the way the business of governing is conducted in each nation.

The Death Knell for American Free Speech Tradition

In a case that has received global attention and reproach, Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident of the United States and recent graduate of Columbia University (another target of the Trump administration’s ire), was arrested on 8 March by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in front of his apartment in New York and subsequently transferred to a detention facility in Louisiana. In this blog post, my aim is to show that the case of Mr. Khalil implicates perhaps the most sacrosanct of American constitutional rights: free speech. 

International Law Under Pressure

In this blog post, we document and analyse the numerous apparent breaches of international law that have occurred within the first six weeks of the 2025 Trump administration. What began as an informal discussion at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law has evolved into this analytical overview. We believe this documentation serves both academic purposes and potentially supports future legal proceedings. While defenders of these actions will undoubtedly offer justifications for what we identify as clear breaches of international law, our analysis aims to provide an assessment based on established international legal principles.