Two distinguished law professors recently offered incoming law students advice from different but unusually complementary perspectives. Vikram David Amar, writing broadly about the habits of mind and disciplined effort required to succeed in law school, is principally concerned with how students learn to think like lawyers. Michael C. Dorf, focusing more specifically on artificial intelligence, considers how that learning process can be preserved and adapted at a time when AI systems can produce seemingly authoritative answers almost instantly.

Considering their essays together reveals an important relationship that might be less apparent if each were read in isolation. The traditional methods through which law students develop legal reasoning, judgment, and intellectual independence are now encountering technologies capable of retrieving information, summarizing complex material, and generating plausible responses with remarkable speed. The question is therefore not simply whether students should use AI, but how they can take advantage of useful technological tools without allowing those tools to displace the intellectual work that legal education is intended to cultivate.

Sarat’s article is strongly critical of the administration. His central concern is that the threat of criminal enforcement may be moving beyond conventional law-enforcement situations and into disputes involving government authority and public policy, particularly immigration enforcement and the administration of elections. Because Sarat’s article is commentary rather than a neutral news report, it is useful to examine his arguments alongside the administration’s own statements, relevant government documents, and other primary sources. Doing so provides a fuller context within which readers can evaluate both Sarat’s concerns and the federal government’s stated legal and policy justifications.

From Political Rhetoric to Governmental Power

Opinion Summaries Posted for Week Ending  August 14 ,2026

Criminal Law

Cost Estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), August 6, 2026.

Overview of Document:

They gathered not as perfect men,

But men who knew the gathering storm;

This essay does not advocate a predetermined legal or religious outcome. Its purpose is to examine, as fairly and carefully as possible, the competing arguments surrounding proposals to create a child-abuse exception to the clergy-penitent privilege or sacramental seal of confession. The protection of children, the preservation of religious liberty, the responsibilities of clergy, and the practical consequences of mandatory-reporting laws all deserve serious consideration. After reviewing these perspectives, readers should be left to decide how, or whether, these important interests can be reconciled.¹

Introduction: A Difficult Intersection of Law, Religion, and Child Protection

For more than 70 million Americans, Social Security provides an essential source of retirement, disability, and survivor income. One of the program’s most important features is the annual Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA), which is intended to help benefits keep pace with inflation.

A recently introduced proposal in Congress the Social Security 2100 Act would make a significant change to the way future COLAs are calculated. According to a recent overview published by FinanceBuzz, the legislation would replace the current inflation index used for Social Security with one that many advocates believe more accurately reflects the spending patterns of older Americans. If enacted, retirees could receive modestly larger annual benefit increases over time.

August 4, 2026.

ABSTRACT:

Opinion Summaries Posted for Week Ending  July 31 ,2026

Criminal Law

Artificial intelligence policy has often been characterized as a contest between those urging rapid innovation and those seeking greater regulation. A recently released statement entitled Pacing the Frontier suggests that this characterization may no longer be sufficient.

Signed by more than one thousand researchers and employees from leading AI organizations (including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, and others) the statement does not advocate halting AI research. Instead, it urges governments to help develop the technical and institutional mechanisms needed to ensure that future advances remain under meaningful human oversight.