Professor Jason Mazzone joined Professor Vikram Amar in his “Brothers in Law” series for SCOTUSblog, written with his brother, Professor Akhil Amar of Yale Law School, to examine the ways in which President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. The article goes beyond the text of the 14th Amendment, and examines the Supreme Court’s landmark 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark as well as the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, both of which support the amendment and represent decades of settled case law. Their work was also quoted in a National Review editorial that predicts a supermajority will invalidate the executive order.

President Donald Trump issued an executive order that would end birthright citizenship as commonly understood. More than a year later, the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on the case, and Professors Jason Mazzone and Vikram Amar believe the order should be invalidated. Writing at Justia Verdict, the professors argue, again, that the order violates the first sentence of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it also flouts the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act.

As Democrat-led states seek new laws that allow individuals to sue federal agents in response to tactics used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Reuters quotes Professors Jason Mazzone and Vikram Amar on a law that Illinois recently passed. Their scholarship, originally published in Justia Verdict, called the Illinois law “innovative” but “imperfect” as a way to address these concerns.

In October, the Illinois Legislature passed the Bivens Act, which provides new state-level protections for individuals interacting with Illinois courts, hospitals, schools, and child-care centers during civil immigration enforcement activities. Writing at Justia Verdict, Professors Jason Mazzone and Vikram Amar praise the law as “an important and innovative law in keeping with the proudest tradition of federalism”; however, they note that some aspects of the Act are unlikely to survive federal constitutional challenges. In their article, they explain why the law is good and why some parts are destined to be struck down.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted review in Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections on a preliminary question of whether the parties who brought suit had standing under Article III of the Constitution to invoke the power of the federal courts in the first place. Writing at Justia Verdict, Professors Jason Mazzone and Vikram Amar offer analysis as to how the Court should approach the issues raised by Bost, and why it should rule in plaintiffs’ favor.

One of the cases before the U.S. Supreme Court in its latest term is already moot, Professors Jason Mazzone and Vikram Amar argue in a new editorial published at Justia Verdict. Little v. Hecox present the justices with the question of whether laws to protect women’s and girls’ sports by limiting participation based on sex assigned at birth violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Examining the facts in the case, they find that the justices should find the case moot and order vacatur.

In the wake of an executive order asking the Department of Justice to prioritize enforcement of criminal and civil laws against desecration of the United States flag, Professors Vikram Amar and Jason Mazzone examine some relevant cases decided by the Supreme Court and others. Writing at Justia Verdict, they conclude “singling out flag desecration would remain problematic because flag destruction reflects a particular (albeit somewhat capacious) viewpoint that is undeniably critical of government policy and the status quo.”

Should the Supreme Court extend its practice of granting “cert. (or certiorari) before judgement,” in which it may rule on the merits after a decision by the district court, but without the benefit of review and judgment by the court of appeals? In a new article at Justia Verdict, Professors Vikram Amar and Jason Mazzone weigh in on the merits of this idea, put forward by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. They consider the possible benefits, as well as drawbacks, such as cutting out appeals courts and minimizing time for scholarly debate and other commentary.

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. “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,” they write.

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.