<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Vikram D. Amar | DEV-College of Law | Illinois</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www2-t.law.illinois.edu/tag/vikram-d-amar/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www2-t.law.illinois.edu</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2025 15:46:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Amar and Mazzone revisit core principles of Federalism</title>
		<link>https://www2-t.law.illinois.edu/news/amar-and-mazzone-revisit-core-principles-of-federalism/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Davies]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2025 15:46:57 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Faculty News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jason Mazzone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vikram D. Amar]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www2-t.law.illinois.edu/?p=17433</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In response to protests in Los Angeles and the subsequent responses by local and federal officials, Professors Vikram Amar and Jason Mazzone put their constitutional law expertise to work to take another look at the principles of federalism and why they matter. &#8220;To conclude states must agree with the President before any kind of federalized military forces [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>In response to protests in Los Angeles and the subsequent responses by local and federal officials, Professors Vikram Amar and Jason Mazzone put their constitutional law expertise to work to take another look at the principles of federalism and why they matter. &#8220;To conclude states must agree with the President before any kind of federalized military forces could be used would be to place the safety of federal personnel and federal property at the mercy of state government. As American history suggests, that could be a very dangerous scenario,&#8221; they write.</p>



<p>Read the full article on Justia Verdict.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amar and Mazzone pen series on recent Fifth Circuit case</title>
		<link>https://www2-t.law.illinois.edu/news/amar-and-mazzone-pen-series-on-recent-fifth-circuit-case/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Davies]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2025 18:27:44 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Faculty News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jason Mazzone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vikram D. Amar]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www2-t.law.illinois.edu/?p=17141</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[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 [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>The case of <em>Umphress v. Hall</em> 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. <a href="https://verdict.justia.com/2025/04/22/recent-fifth-circuit-case-umphress-v-hall-raises-important-questions-on-same-sex-marriage-equality-judicial-ethics-and-federal-court-procedures">In the first part of the series</a>, Amar and Mazzone examine the “justiciability” of the case; that is, whether a federal court can or should entertain a particular dispute. <a href="https://verdict.justia.com/2025/05/02/can-judges-in-texas-discriminate-against-same-sex-couples-in-solemnizing-marriages">In part two</a>, the authors examine how the case may be determined and the central question of whether judges may discriminate in officiating a marriage.</p>



<p>Read <a href="https://verdict.justia.com/2025/04/22/recent-fifth-circuit-case-umphress-v-hall-raises-important-questions-on-same-sex-marriage-equality-judicial-ethics-and-federal-court-procedures">part 1</a> and <a href="https://verdict.justia.com/2025/05/02/can-judges-in-texas-discriminate-against-same-sex-couples-in-solemnizing-marriages">part 2</a> on Justia Verdict.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mazzone and Amar publish article on executive orders targeting law firms</title>
		<link>https://www2-t.law.illinois.edu/news/mazzone-and-amar-publish-article-on-executive-orders-targeting-law-firms/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Davies]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2025 20:06:26 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Faculty News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jason Mazzone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vikram D. Amar]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www2-t.law.illinois.edu/?p=17020</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[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 &#8220;much doubt that the executive orders are blatant violations of [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>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 &#8220;much doubt that the executive orders are blatant violations of the First and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution,&#8221; and that &#8220;the law firms collectively would be better off&#8230;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.&#8221;</p>



<p><a href="https://verdict.justia.com/2025/04/11/why-coordinated-resistance-by-law-firms-to-the-trump-administrations-targeted-executive-orders-against-biglaw-would-not-run-afoul-of-antitrust-restrictions">Read more of their work at Justia Verdict.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amar and Mazzone defend birthright citizenship clause</title>
		<link>https://www2-t.law.illinois.edu/news/amar-and-mazzone-defend-birthright-citizenship-clause/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Davies]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:37:58 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Faculty News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jason Mazzone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vikram D. Amar]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www2-t.law.illinois.edu/?p=16604</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[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&#8217;s executive order [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>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&#8217;s executive order seeking to end the practice are doing &#8220;absolute violence to the words of the Clause.&#8221;</p>



<p><a href="https://verdict.justia.com/2025/03/10/the-birthright-citizenship-clause-means-exactly-what-it-says">Read the full article at Justia Verdict.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amar and Mazzone publish article on rule of law in Pennsylvania</title>
		<link>https://www2-t.law.illinois.edu/news/amar-and-mazzone-publish-article-on-rule-of-law-in-pennsylvania/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Davies]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2025 20:22:29 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Faculty News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jason Mazzone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vikram D. Amar]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www2-t.law.illinois.edu/?p=15488</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[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&#8217;s the primary concern of a new article by Professors Vikram Amar and Jason Mazzone. Writing at Justia Verdict, the pair [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>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&#8217;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.</p>



<p><a href="https://verdict.justia.com/2024/11/22/does-the-rule-of-law-mean-that-only-courts-can-rule-the-bucks-county-pennsylvania-episode-tees-up-the-question">Read the full editorial online.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amar and Mazzone recap SCOTUS term at Justia</title>
		<link>https://www2-t.law.illinois.edu/news/amar-and-mazzone-recap-scotus-term-at-justia/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Law News]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2024 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Faculty News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jason Mazzone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vikram D. Amar]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://newstest.collegeoflaw.web.illinois.edu/?p=13532</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[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. &#8220;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 [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>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. &#8220;In the <em id="isPasted">current</em> term, at least, the Court has <em>not</em> been consistently conservative in a partisan way. Nor has the Court been particularly aggressive in taking up and deciding hot-button issues,&#8221; 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&#8217;s highest court.</p>



<p><a href="https://verdict.justia.com/2024/06/24/with-the-end-of-its-2023-24-term-in-sight-the-supreme-court-has-not-been-particularly-partisan-or-aggressive-this-year-even-as-it-has-had-no-choice-but-to-take-certain-high-profile-cases-in-part-be">Read the full article online.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amar and Mazzone explore free speech in high schools in new series</title>
		<link>https://www2-t.law.illinois.edu/news/amar-and-mazzone-explore-free-speech-in-high-schools-in-new-series/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Law News]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2024 14:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Faculty News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jason Mazzone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vikram D. Amar]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://newstest.collegeoflaw.web.illinois.edu/?p=13553</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[After a North Carolina high school student was suspended for using the term &#8220;illegal alien&#8221; in an assignment, Professors Vikram Amar and Jason Mazzone look closely at the First Amendment issues arising from the situation. In a two-part series on Justia Verdict, the authors break down the case as if it were being presented before [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>After a North Carolina high school student was suspended for using the term &#8220;illegal alien&#8221; in an assignment, Professors Vikram Amar and Jason Mazzone look closely at the First Amendment issues arising from the situation. In a two-part series on Justia Verdict, the authors break down the case as if it were being presented before a class of law students, examining what the law says and what precedent exists. Their analysis winds through &#8220;how complicated, murky (and unresolved) much of the doctrinal landscape in this realm is,&#8221; and how cases like this pose important questions about free speech.</p>



<p>Read <a href="https://verdict.justia.com/2024/04/29/can-a-public-high-school-punish-a-student-for-asking-a-question-that-refers-to-illegal-aliens">part 1</a> and <a href="https://verdict.justia.com/2024/04/30/can-a-public-high-school-punish-a-student-for-asking-a-question-that-refers-to-illegal-aliens-2">part 2</a> on Justia Verdict.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court cites Amar in securities fraud case</title>
		<link>https://www2-t.law.illinois.edu/news/supreme-court-cites-amar-in-securities-fraud-case/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Law News]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2024 15:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Faculty News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vikram D. Amar]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://newstest.collegeoflaw.web.illinois.edu/?p=13559</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[By a 6-3 decision in the case of SEC v. Jarkesy, the Supreme Court ruled defendants are entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment in cases of federal agencies seeking civil penalties for alleged fraud. The decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, places new limits on the ability of federal agencies to [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>By a 6-3 decision in the case of <em>SEC v. Jarkesy</em>, the Supreme Court ruled defendants are entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment in cases of federal agencies seeking civil penalties for alleged fraud. The decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, places new limits on the ability of federal agencies to charge a person or company with a violation. In the opinion for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts cites Professor Vikram Amar&#8217;s scholarship, which criticized earlier cases in which the Court allowed certain disputes to be resolved before administrative agencies without the safeguards that juries provide.&nbsp;</p>



<p><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-859_1924.pdf">Read the full opinion in the case of <em>SEC v. Jarksey</em>.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amar, Mazzone, and Shapiro author article on Disney&#8217;s speech-retaliation case</title>
		<link>https://www2-t.law.illinois.edu/news/amar-mazzone-and-shapiro-author-article-on-disneys-speech-retaliation-case/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Law News]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Faculty News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jason Mazzone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lena Shapiro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vikram D. Amar]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://newstest.collegeoflaw.web.illinois.edu/?p=13610</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In early 2024, a federal district court judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Disney Corporation against Florida officials for alleged retaliation against Disney’s opposition to certain Florida laws and policies by altering the board that regulates the land where Disney World is located. Professors Vikram Amar, Jason Mazzone, and Lena Shapiro collaborated in an [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>In early 2024, a federal district court judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Disney Corporation against Florida officials for alleged retaliation against Disney’s opposition to certain Florida laws and policies by altering the board that regulates the land where Disney World is located. Professors Vikram Amar, Jason Mazzone, and Lena Shapiro collaborated in an article for Justia Verdict examining the complex constitutional issues raised by this decision. &#8220;If government is trying to retaliate against you because of your past speech, doesn’t <em id="isPasted">that</em> violate your First Amendment rights regardless of whether the retaliation takes the form of speech regulation itself?&#8221; the professors wrote.</p>



<p><a href="https://verdict.justia.com/2024/02/28/was-the-federal-district-court-correct-in-dismissing-disneys-speech-retaliation-case-against-florida-officials">Read more about this complex case on Justia Verdict.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amar and Mazzone publish new article on ballot counting lawsuit in Mississippi</title>
		<link>https://www2-t.law.illinois.edu/news/amar-and-mazzone-publish-new-article-on-ballot-counting-lawsuit-in-mississippi/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Law News]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2024 19:00:14 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Faculty News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jason Mazzone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vikram D. Amar]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://newstest.collegeoflaw.web.illinois.edu/?p=13629</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[A recent lawsuit filed by the&#160;Republican National Committee and other plaintiffs challenges Mississippi&#8217;s practice of counting mail-in ballots received within five business days after &#8220;Election Day.&#8221; This practice, similar to elections in other states, could face major disruption if the lawsuit succeeds, affecting the upcoming congressional and presidential elections. Writing at Justia Verdict, Professors Vikram [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<div class="w-full text-token-text-primary" data-testid="conversation-turn-3" id="isPasted"><div class="px-4 py-2 justify-center text-base md:gap-6 m-auto"><div class="flex flex-1 text-base mx-auto gap-3 md:px-5 lg:px-1 xl:px-5 md:max-w-3xl lg:max-w-[40rem] xl:max-w-[48rem] group final-completion"><div class="relative flex w-full flex-col agent-turn"><div class="flex-col gap-1 md:gap-3"><div class="flex flex-grow flex-col max-w-full"><div class="min-h-[20px] text-message flex flex-col items-start gap-3 whitespace-pre-wrap break-words [.text-message+&amp;]:mt-5 overflow-x-auto" data-message-author-role="assistant" data-message-id="ec01bc5d-a16b-45d6-8418-e4e38e5bcf49"><div class="markdown prose w-full break-words dark:prose-invert light"><p>A recent <span style="font-size: inherit; background-color: transparent;">lawsuit filed by the</span><span style="font-size: inherit; background-color: transparent;">&nbsp;Republican National Committee and other plaintiffs challenges Mississippi&#8217;s practice of counting mail-in ballots received within five business days after &#8220;Election Day.&#8221; This practice, similar to elections in other states, could face major disruption if the lawsuit succeeds, affecting the upcoming congressional and presidential elections. Writing at Justia Verdict, Professors Vikram Amar and Jason Mazzone argue the lawsuit&#8217;s chances of success seem low, as it hinges on a weak theory of illegality, and the distinction between voting and counting ballots after Election Day presents complexities that undermine the plaintiffs&#8217; claims.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: inherit; background-color: transparent;"><a href="https://verdict.justia.com/2024/02/01/why-a-recent-federal-lawsuit-filed-by-republican-party-officials-challenging-mississippis-approach-to-counting-ballots-in-federal-elections-lacks-any-significant-chance-of-success">Read the full article online.</a></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>



<div class="mx-auto"><br></div>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
