Debate

Maduro’s Arrest Highlights Supreme Court Rulings on Presidential Authority

by

The recent arrest of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by U.S. military forces has ignited a complex debate surrounding the authority of the U.S. presidency, particularly in the context of extraterritorial arrests. Legal scholars are revisiting landmark Supreme Court rulings that may shed light on the legality of such actions and the implications for international law. As the U.S. government prepares to prosecute Maduro on charges of drug trafficking and terrorism, the implications of past judicial decisions become increasingly relevant. Presidential Authority and Extraterritorial Arrests In exploring the legal framework surrounding Maduro’s arrest, one key … Read more

Hamm v. Smith and the Future of Capital Punishment

by

The case of Hamm v. Smith has emerged as a focal point in the ongoing debate surrounding capital punishment and its constitutional implications. This case, which centers on the intellectual disability of Joseph Clifton Smith, raises significant questions about the standards used to determine eligibility for the death penalty. As the legal landscape evolves, the outcomes of such cases may have far-reaching consequences for the future of capital punishment in the United States. The Constitutional Context of Hamm v. Smith At the heart of Hamm v. Smith lies the pivotal issue of whether Smith qualifies … Read more

Skrmetti and birth equality (Part V): How the case should have been analyzed

by

The recent Supreme Court decision in United States v. Skrmetti has sparked significant debate regarding the implications of birth equality in the context of legal classifications based on sex and age. The ruling, which permits Tennessee to enforce a law that restricts medical treatments for minors based on their biological sex, raises crucial questions about the intersection of state law, individual rights, and constitutional principles. In this segment, we will analyze the court’s reasoning and explore how the case should have been approached through the lens of birth equality. Understanding the Implications of the Skrmetti … Read more

How deferential is the Roberts court to presidential power?

by

The relationship between the Supreme Court and presidential power has been a focal point of constitutional debate, particularly during the tenure of the Roberts Court. Scholars and commentators alike have expressed concerns about the extent to which the Court defers to executive authority, especially in light of actions taken during the Trump administration. This complex dynamic raises critical questions about the balance of power among the branches of government and the implications for democracy and the rule of law. Understanding the Roberts Court’s Approach to Presidential Power Recent analyses suggest that the Roberts Court may … Read more