Fall 2025 - Law in the
Headlines
Course Description:
Fall 2025
Law in the Headlines: Exploring Current Legal Controversies,
with Leora Harpaz
Thurs 10:30-11:45am
Fall 2025
It often seems that high-profile legal controversies are
almost a daily occurrence now, making them lead stories in
the news. Leora will discuss the Supreme Court's recent
actions in areas of political significance. That was true of
many of the cases the Court decided during its 2024-25 Term
in which President Trump scored major victories. Topping the
list was the Court’s decision to severely limit the ability
of lower federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions
rather than relief that only applies to the parties before
the Court. Other decisions expanded religious liberty,
limited free speech, and upheld a ban on gender-affirming
medical care for transgender teenagers. In addition to cases
on the Court’s regular docket, Leora will review cases that
came to the Court as emergency applications, the Trump
administration’s favorite method of quickly reaching the
Supreme Court when it loses in a lower court. Finally, she
will describe major cases that the Court has already agreed
to hear during the 2025-26 Term. Students will
have an opportunity to make suggestions for topics that
they would like to have discussed in upcoming classes.
Class 7 - Oct. 17, 2025 & Class 8 - Dec. 1, 2025
SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
42 U.S.C. § 1973. Denial or abridgement of right to vote
on account of race or color through voting
qualifications or prerequisites; establishment of
violation.
a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or
standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or
applied by any State or political subdivision in a
manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the
right of any citizen of the United States to vote on
account of race or color, or in contravention of the
guarantees set forth in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section is
established if, based on the totality of circumstances,
it is shown that the political processes leading to
nomination or election in the State or political
subdivision are not equally open to participation by
members of a class of citizens protected by subsection
(a) of this section in that its members have less
opportunity than other members of the electorate to
participate in the political process and to elect
representatives of their choice. The extent to which
members of a protected class have been elected to office
in the State or political subdivision is one
circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That
nothing in this section establishes a right to have
members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to
their proportion in the population.
Class 6 - Oct. 23, 2025
No material posted for this class.
Class 5 - Oct. 16, 2025
No material posted for this class.
Class 4 - Oct 9, 2025
Fourteenth
Amendment
Section 1
All persons
born or
naturalized in
the United
States, and
subject to the
jurisdiction
thereof, are
citizens of
the United
States and of
the State
wherein they
reside.
Executive
Order 14160 -
Jan. 20, 2025
Protecting the
Meaning and
Value of
American
Citizenship
. . . .
Sec. 2.
Policy. (a) It
is the policy
of the United
States that no
department or
agency of the
United States
government
shall issue
documents
recognizing
United States
citizenship,
or accept
documents
issued by
State, local,
or other
governments or
authorities
purporting to
recognize
United States
citizenship,
to persons:
(1) when that
person’s
mother was
unlawfully
present in the
United States
and the
person’s
father was not
a United
States citizen
or lawful
permanent
resident at
the time of
said person’s
birth, or (2)
when that
person’s
mother’s
presence in
the United
States was
lawful but
temporary, and
the person’s
father was not
a United
States citizen
or lawful
permanent
resident at
the time of
said person’s
birth.
(b) Subsection
(a) of this
section shall
apply only to
persons who
are born
within the
United States
after 30 days
from the date
of this order.
Mahmoud
v. Taylor
Dissent by
Justice
Sotomayor:
“Public
schools, this
Court has
said, are ‘at
once the
symbol of our
democracy and
the most
pervasive
means for
promoting our
common
destiny.’ They
offer to
children of
all faiths and
backgrounds an
education and
an opportunity
to practice
living in our
multicultural
society. That
experience is
critical to
our Nation’s
civic
vitality. Yet
it will become
a mere memory
if children
must be
insulated from
exposure to
ideas and
concepts that
may conflict
with their
parents’
religious
beliefs.
Today’s ruling
ushers in that
new reality.
Casting aside
longstanding
precedent, the
Court invents
a
constitutional
right to avoid
exposure to
‘subtle’
themes
‘contrary to
the religious
principles’
that parents
wish to
instill in
their
children.
Exposing
students to
the ‘message’
that LGBTQ
people exist,
and that their
loved ones may
celebrate
their
marriages and
life events,
the majority
says, is
enough to
trigger the
most demanding
form of
judicial
scrutiny. That
novel rule is
squarely
foreclosed by
our precedent
and offers no
limiting
principle.
Given the
great
diversity of
religious
beliefs in
this country,
countless
interactions
that occur
every day in
public schools
might expose
children to
messages that
conflict with
a parent’s
religious
beliefs. If
that is
sufficient to
trigger strict
scrutiny, then
little is not.
The result
will be chaos
for this
Nation’s
public
schools.
Requiring
schools to
provide
advance notice
and the chance
to opt out of
every lesson
plan or story
time that
might
implicate a
parent’s
religious
beliefs will
impose
impossible
administrative
burdens on
schools. The
harm will not
be borne by
educators
alone:
Children will
suffer too.
Classroom
disruptions
and absences
may well
inflict
long-lasting
harm on
students’
learning and
development.
Worse yet, the
majority
closes its
eyes to the
inevitable
chilling
effects of its
ruling. Many
school
districts, and
particularly
the most
resource
strapped,
cannot afford
to engage in
costly
litigation
over opt-out
rights or to
divert
resources to
tracking and
managing
student
absences.
Schools may
instead censor
their
curricula,
stripping
material that
risks
generating
religious
objections.
The Court’s
ruling, in
effect, thus
hands a subset
of parents the
right to veto
curricular
choices long
left to
locally
elected school
boards.
Because I
cannot
countenance
the Court’s
contortion of
our precedent
and the untold
harms that
will follow, I
dissent.”
Justice
Alito's
instructions
on remand:
“The Board’s
introduction
of the
‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’
storybooks,
along with its
decision to
withhold opt
outs, places
an
unconstitutional
burden on the
parents’
rights to the
free exercise
of their
religion. The
parents have
therefore
shown that
they are
likely to
succeed in
their free
exercise
claims. They
have likewise
shown
entitlement to
a preliminary
injunction
pending the
completion of
this lawsuit.
In the absence
of an
injunction,
the parents
will continue
to be put to a
choice: either
risk their
child’s
exposure to
burdensome
instruction,
or pay
substantial
sums for
alternative
educational
services. As
we have
explained,
that choice
unconstitutionally
burdens the
parents’
religious
exercise, and
‘[t]he loss of
First
Amendment
freedoms, for
even minimal
periods of
time,
unquestionably
constitutes
irreparable
injury.’
Furthermore,
in light of
the strong
showing made
by the parents
here, and the
lack of a
compelling
interest
supporting the
Board’s
policies, an
injunction is
both equitable
and in the
public
interest. The
petitioners
should receive
preliminary
relief while
this lawsuit
proceeds.
Specifically,
until all
appellate
review in this
case is
completed, the
Board should
be ordered to
notify them in
advance
whenever one
of the books
in question or
any other
similar book
is to be used
in any way and
to allow them
to have their
children
excused from
that
instruction.
The judgment
of the Court
of Appeals is
reversed, and
the case is
remanded for
further
proceedings
consistent
with this
opinion.”
Class 3 - Sept. 25, 2025
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
Dissent by Justice Kagan:
“A
law like H. B. 1181 might well pass the strict-scrutiny
test, hard as it usually is to do so. . . .[E]veryone
agrees that shielding children from exposure to the
sexually explicit speech H. B. 1181 targets is a
compelling state interest. And Texas might be right in
arguing that it has no less restrictive way to achieve
that goal: It is difficult, as everyone also agrees, to
limit minors’ access to things appearing on the
internet. If H. B. 1181 is the best Texas can
do—meaning, the means of achieving the State’s objective
while restricting adults’ speech rights the least—then
the statute should pass First Amendment review. ¶But
what if Texas could do better—what if Texas could
achieve its interest without so interfering with adults’
constitutionally protected rights in viewing the speech
H. B. 1181 covers? That is the ultimate question on
which the Court and I disagree.”
“The critical question, then, is whether the State can
show that the proposed alternatives will not be as
effective as the challenged statute. If the State
cannot, the statute should not take effect, because it
would limit protected speech unnecessarily. There would
be every reason to make the State switch to a
less-speech-restrictive, equally-or-more-effective
regulatory mechanism. But a State that has closely
attended to the speech consequences of its regulation
might well make the required showing in this sphere.
Given how the internet works, no court should expect
that a law effectively shielding children from sexually
explicit expression could leave adults wholly
unaffected. To the contrary, such a law will almost
necessarily impose corollary burdens. And Texas may be
right that the commonly proposed alternatives to laws
like H. B. 1181—such as content filtering
technology—cannot equal, or even approach, age
verification systems in effectiveness. In that event,
those alternatives will be irrelevant to the inquiry,
and a court will explore only whether another, equally
effective age verification mechanism will place a lesser
burden on protected speech. Review of that kind should
not be the horror show for Texas and other States that
the majority maintains. It is just what they should have
to pass before implementing a content-based burden on
protected expression.”
Mahmoud v. Taylor
Dissent by Justice Sotomayor:
“Public schools, this Court has said, are ‘at once the
symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for
promoting our common destiny.’ They offer to children of
all faiths and backgrounds an education and an
opportunity to practice living in our multicultural
society. That experience is critical to our Nation’s
civic vitality. Yet it will become a mere memory if
children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and
concepts that may conflict with their parents’ religious
beliefs.
Today’s ruling ushers in that new reality. Casting aside
longstanding precedent, the Court invents a
constitutional right to avoid exposure to ‘subtle’
themes ‘contrary to the religious principles’ that
parents wish to instill in their children. Exposing
students to the ‘message’ that LGBTQ people exist, and
that their loved ones may celebrate their marriages and
life events, the majority says, is enough to trigger the
most demanding form of judicial scrutiny. That novel
rule is squarely foreclosed by our precedent and offers
no limiting principle. Given the great diversity of
religious beliefs in this country, countless
interactions that occur every day in public schools
might expose children to messages that conflict with a
parent’s religious beliefs. If that is sufficient to
trigger strict scrutiny, then little is not.
The result will be chaos for this Nation’s public
schools. Requiring schools to provide advance notice and
the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time
that might implicate a parent’s religious beliefs will
impose impossible administrative burdens on schools. The
harm will not be borne by educators alone: Children will
suffer too. Classroom disruptions and absences may well
inflict long-lasting harm on students’ learning and
development.
Worse yet, the majority closes its eyes to the
inevitable chilling effects of its ruling. Many school
districts, and particularly the most resource strapped,
cannot afford to engage in costly litigation over
opt-out rights or to divert resources to tracking and
managing student absences. Schools may instead censor
their curricula, stripping material that risks
generating religious objections. The Court’s ruling, in
effect, thus hands a subset of parents the right to veto
curricular choices long left to locally elected school
boards. Because I cannot countenance the Court’s
contortion of our precedent and the untold harms that
will follow, I dissent.”
Justice Alito's instructions on remand:
“The Board’s introduction of the ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’
storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt
outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents’
rights to the free exercise of their religion. The
parents have therefore shown that they are likely to
succeed in their free exercise claims. They have
likewise shown entitlement to a preliminary injunction
pending the completion of this lawsuit. In the absence
of an injunction, the parents will continue to be put to
a choice: either risk their child’s exposure to
burdensome instruction, or pay substantial sums for
alternative educational services. As we have explained,
that choice unconstitutionally burdens the parents’
religious exercise, and ‘[t]he loss of First Amendment
freedoms, for even minimal periods of time,
unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’
Furthermore, in light of the strong showing made by the
parents here, and the lack of a compelling interest
supporting the Board’s policies, an injunction is both
equitable and in the public interest. The petitioners
should receive preliminary relief while this lawsuit
proceeds. Specifically, until all appellate review in
this case is completed, the Board should be ordered to
notify them in advance whenever one of the books in
question or any other similar book is to be used in any
way and to allow them to have their children excused
from that instruction.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and
the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.”
Class 2 - Sept. 18, 2025
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act - IEEPA
50 U.S. Code § 1701
(a) Any authority granted to the President
by section 1702 of this title may be
exercised to deal with any unusual and
extraordinary threat, which has its source
in whole or substantial part outside the
United States, to the national security,
foreign policy, or economy of the United
States, if the President declares a national
emergency with respect to such threat.
50 U.S. Code § 1702
The President may:
(B) . . . regulate,
direct and compel,
nullify, void,
prevent or prohibit,
any acquisition,
holding,
withholding, use,
transfer,
withdrawal,
transportation,
importation or
exportation of, or
dealing in, or
exercising any
right, power, or
privilege with
respect to, or
transactions
involving, any
property in which
any foreign country
or a national
thereof has any
interest by any
person, or with
respect to any
property, subject to
the jurisdiction of
the United States;
Class 1 - Sept. 11, 2025
No notes for this class.