constitutional law

Over 175 years later, cities’ historic role as hubs of resistance takes on renewed resonance in today’s era of rising authoritarianism in the United States.

A series exploring the powers and authorities state and local governments have to check federal overreach and protect democratic norms and individual rights.

States need independent agencies with jurisdiction to enforce their residents’ rights so the valuation of those rights are evenhanded and not subject to political will.

The erosion of the presumption of regularity presents opportunities to those challenging the Trump administration’s agenda in court.

Trump v. Cook marked a significant break from the traditional judicial deference known as the "presumption of regularity."

As a federal-level accountability desert forms, states are reviving "collateral accountability" — damages suits against federal officers who violate constitutional rights.

States must be vigilant stewards of their data — auditing what they hold, limiting what they share, and enforcing legal constraints against federal overreach.

States have constitutional protections against commandeering and coercion — but face a new challenge when the federal government sidelines states completely.

State and local governments have constitutional and legal powers that can be harnessed to challenge repressive federal actions and to advance meaningful freedom and equality.

Numerous federal agencies possess statutory authority to obtain a wide range of sensitive information without advance judicial approval or probable cause of illegal activity.

A close analysis of the Supreme Court Justices' opinions in Trump v. Barbara.

A post-Trump America must finally turn transitional justice tools inward and reckon with failures it has long refused to face if it aims to repair, not simply ignore.