Jason Mazzone 3 - College of Law

Amar and Mazzone pen series on recent Fifth Circuit case

Ionic column at the Smith Memorial Hall.

The case of Umphress v. Hall is ripe with teachable moments, and Professors Vikram Amar and Jason Mazzone gladly took the bait in a recent two-part series of articles published at Justia Verdict. The case involves a judge in Texas who is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the Fifth Circuit because he refuses to perform same-sex weddings because of his religious convictions. In the first part of the series, Amar and Mazzone examine the “justiciability” of the case; that is, whether a federal court can or should entertain a particular dispute. In part two, the authors examine how the case may be determined and the central question of whether judges may discriminate in officiating a marriage.

Read part 1 and part 2 on Justia Verdict.

Mazzone and Amar publish article on executive orders targeting law firms

Executive orders from the White House targeting law firms have disrupted Big Law firms; however, many firms have negotiated deals with the administration so as to be removed from its blacklist. Professors Jason Mazzone and Vikram Amar write at Justia Verdict that there is not “much doubt that the executive orders are blatant violations of the First and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution,” and that “the law firms collectively would be better off…if none of them settled and the administration’s executive orders were forcefully and repeatedly rebuffed by courts all the way to the Supreme Court.”

Mazzone joins CBS to discuss deportations

The Trump administration’s moves to arrest Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil and decision not comply with a federal judge’s orders to halt deportation flights raise questions about the rights enumerated in the Constitution as well as its constraints. Professor Jason Mazzone made an appearance on CBS Chicago to share his expertise on how constitutional law can be applied to these situations.

Watch his appearance on the CBS Chicago website.

Amar and Mazzone defend birthright citizenship clause

Writing at Justia Verdict, Professors Vikram Amar and Jason Mazzone describe the Fourteenth Amendment as perhaps the most important piece of law enacted anywhere in the world over the last two centuries. In their defense of the birthright citizenship clause, the authors suggest that criticisms of the clause in support of President Trump’s executive order seeking to end the practice are doing “absolute violence to the words of the Clause.”

Read the full article at Justia Verdict.

Symposium papers from “The Future of History and Tradition” available

In early 2024, the Program in Constitutional Theory, History and Law co-sponsored with the Harvard Law School and the University of Richmond School of Law a symposium on “The Future of History and Tradition.” The symposium, held at Harvard, brought together leading scholars to discuss the Supreme Court’s recent renewed interest in history and tradition as a tool for interpreting and applying the Constitution and the attendant puzzles and challenges that lie ahead. Essays from the symposium have now been published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy .

View the full issue of symposium papers online.

Mazzone speaks with Wall Street Journal about state “divorce”

Fall view of Illini Union from north of Green Street.

“New Illinois” comprising all counties but Cook may have passed nonbinding votes in 33 of Illinois’s counties, but it is still far from becoming reality according to Professor Jason Mazzone. In an article examining the phenomenon of red counties seeking to divorce from their blue states, the Wall Street Journal shares data and anecdotes driving the movement and quotes Mazzone. ““It seems far-fetched. But we live in uncertain times. So if you’ve got the right people in Congress—and I don’t think we do have the right people in Congress—you could do it,” he said.

Read the full article.

Amar and Mazzone publish article on rule of law in Pennsylvania

Are state executive officials in Pennsylvania are allowed, under the state constitution, to decline to enforce a statutory provision if the executive officials conclude that the provision violates the state’s highest law, the state constitution? That’s the primary concern of a new article by Professors Vikram Amar and Jason Mazzone. Writing at Justia Verdict, the pair investigate how the rule of law and precedent should apply to this case and how local officials and justices have failed in equal measure.

Read the full editorial online.

Mazzone pens op-ed on presidential election effects on SCOTUS

“In any presidential election, the Supreme Court is on the ballot,” Professor Jason Mazzone writes in the News-Gazette. He details some of the ways in which the election of Donald Trump to a second term might affect the makeup of the Supreme Court. “The first Trump presidency generated a long list of novel legal issues, many of which reached the Supreme Court. Trump’s current bold agenda and the opposition it will produce will mean many more lawsuits in the next four years,” he concludes.

Read his full editorial online.

Mazzone speaks with Law.com about remote proceedings

A high-profile sexual harassment trial has made some of the shortcomings of remote court prodeedings apparent and concerning. Not having a court reporter present has led to transcript problems, which can be an important issue according to Professor Jason Mazzone. “It will be the rare case in which an error in a transcript makes a difference in the outcome. But no lawyer wants to have to tell her client that a typo explains the adverse verdict,” Mazzone told Law.com.

Read the full article here.

Amar and Mazzone recap SCOTUS term at Justia

Professors Vikram Amar and Jason Mazzone take aim at the perception that the Supreme Court has taken a hard-right turn in their latest article written for Justia Verdict. “In the current term, at least, the Court has not been consistently conservative in a partisan way. Nor has the Court been particularly aggressive in taking up and deciding hot-button issues,” they write. Their opinion article examines the 2023-24 session and how a federal circuit court might be more to blame for the misperception of the nation’s highest court.

Read the full article online.