Vikram D. Amar 2 - College of Law

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.”

Amar and Mazzone defend birthright citizenship clause

Ionic column at the Smith Memorial Hall.

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.

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.

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.

Amar and Mazzone explore free speech in high schools in new series

University of Illinois Laboratory High School.

After a North Carolina high school student was suspended for using the term “illegal alien” 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 “how complicated, murky (and unresolved) much of the doctrinal landscape in this realm is,” and how cases like this pose important questions about free speech.

Read part 1 and part 2 on Justia Verdict.

Supreme Court cites Amar in securities fraud case

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 charge a person or company with a violation. In the opinion for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts cites Professor Vikram Amar’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.

Read the full opinion in the case of SEC v. Jarksey.

Amar, Mazzone, and Shapiro author article on Disney’s speech-retaliation case

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. “If government is trying to retaliate against you because of your past speech, doesn’t that violate your First Amendment rights regardless of whether the retaliation takes the form of speech regulation itself?” the professors wrote.

Amar and Mazzone publish new article on ballot counting lawsuit in Mississippi

A recent lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee and other plaintiffs challenges Mississippi’s practice of counting mail-in ballots received within five business days after “Election Day.” 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’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’ claims.

Read the full article online.

Column in New York Times extensively cites amicus brief from Amar

Writing in the New York Times, columnist Jamelle Bouie writes that former President Donald Trump’s actions make him an insurrectionist by any reasonable definition and that the Supreme Court should uphold Colorado’s decision to bar him from the ballot. To support his case, he cites extensively from an amicus brief submitted the Supreme Court by Professor Vikram Amar. Writing along with his brother, Akhil Reed Amar, professor at Yale Law School, the brief suggests that Trump’s actions are similar to John B. Floyd, secretary of the war during the succession crisis of 1860, who directed arms to southern states to be on hand “when treason wanted them.” The Amars conclude that “Certain inactions loom specially large when a current officer, with special obligations to affirmatively thwart other insurrectionists … instead sits on his hands, smiling, as chaos erupts around him. This is precisely the case of Donald Trump.”