Jeannie Suk Gersen
Jeannie Suk Gersen has been contributing to The New Yorker since 2014. She is the John H. Watson, Jr., Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. She served as a law clerk to Justice David H. Souter on the Supreme Court and as a prosecutor in Manhattan. She is the recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship.
How Much of the Government Can Donald Trump Dismantle?
His war on the “deep state” ties into a long debate about the power of bureaucrats to thwart the President’s agenda.
The Demise and Afterlife of Donald Trump’s Criminal Cases
The President-elect is on the verge of beating most, if not all, of the criminal charges against him. What will be the consequences of having brought them in the first place?
Converting to Judaism in the Wake of October 7th
For decades, I maintained a status quo of living like a Jew without being one. When I finally pursued conversion, I discovered that I was part of a larger movement born of crisis.
Can a College Class Still Be Diverse?
Schools are testing how much they can shape the racial outcomes of admissions without being accused of practicing affirmative action.
The Message of the Supreme Court’s Wild Ride of a Term
The anxiety about distinguishing a President from a king, which framed this Court term, is inextricably intertwined with the end-of-democracy theme of the 2024 Presidential race.
This Is What the Twenty-fifth Amendment Was Designed For
If Joe Biden doesn’t willingly resign, there’s another solution, which would allow Democrats to unite around a new incumbent.
Speech Under the Shadow of Punishment
For years, universities have been less inclined to protect speech and quicker to sanction it. After this spring’s protests, it will be difficult to turn back.
The Supreme Court Appears Poised to Protect the Presidency—and Donald Trump
In arguments about Presidential immunity, the conservative Justices, who avoided mentioning Trump, made clear that they are less concerned with holding him accountable than with shielding former Presidents from retribution.
Why Robert Hur Called Biden an “Elderly Man with a Poor Memory”
In his first interview after the release of his controversial report, the former special counsel insists that it was not his job to write for the public.
The Supreme Court and the Risks of January 6, 2025
The Justices seem to want to avoid a major decision about whether Trump can serve as President—but if they do so they may set off a national crisis.
The Future of Academic Freedom
As the Israel-Hamas war provokes claims about unacceptable speech, the ability to debate difficult subjects is in renewed peril.
Could a Trump Win Put His Running Mate in Office?
Senate Republicans’ brief in the Supreme Court surprisingly argues just that.
University Presidents Under Fire
No one should be duped into applauding a McCarthyesque spectacle of members of Congress demanding firings by universities.
What Would Sandra Day O’Connor Have Thought About Affirmative Action for Men?
For decades, college-admissions offices have quietly imposed higher standards on female applicants.
The Supreme Court’s Self-Excusing Ethics Code
Under the Court’s new rules, the Justices appear not to have made any mistakes.
The End of Legacy Admissions Could Transform College Access
After the fall of affirmative action, liberals and conservatives want to eliminate benefits for children of alumni. Could their logic lead to reparations?
The Challenges of Trump’s Third, Momentous Indictment
No case in our system of justice could more directly and fundamentally address the stakes of American democracy and the rule of law.
The Supreme Court Overturns Fifty Years of Precedent on Affirmative Action
A conservative Court holds that student-body diversity is not a “compelling interest.”
After Affirmative Action Ends
The next big question for school admissions will likely be the legality of “race-neutral” methods that are designed with the continuing goal of producing diverse student bodies.
What Justice John Paul Stevens’s Papers Reveal About Affirmative Action
Twenty years ago, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote, in a draft opinion, that white applicants could not be favored over Asian Americans. Why did she delete those lines—and why did Justice Clarence Thomas adopt them in his own opinion?
How Much of the Government Can Donald Trump Dismantle?
His war on the “deep state” ties into a long debate about the power of bureaucrats to thwart the President’s agenda.
The Demise and Afterlife of Donald Trump’s Criminal Cases
The President-elect is on the verge of beating most, if not all, of the criminal charges against him. What will be the consequences of having brought them in the first place?
Converting to Judaism in the Wake of October 7th
For decades, I maintained a status quo of living like a Jew without being one. When I finally pursued conversion, I discovered that I was part of a larger movement born of crisis.
Can a College Class Still Be Diverse?
Schools are testing how much they can shape the racial outcomes of admissions without being accused of practicing affirmative action.
The Message of the Supreme Court’s Wild Ride of a Term
The anxiety about distinguishing a President from a king, which framed this Court term, is inextricably intertwined with the end-of-democracy theme of the 2024 Presidential race.
This Is What the Twenty-fifth Amendment Was Designed For
If Joe Biden doesn’t willingly resign, there’s another solution, which would allow Democrats to unite around a new incumbent.
Speech Under the Shadow of Punishment
For years, universities have been less inclined to protect speech and quicker to sanction it. After this spring’s protests, it will be difficult to turn back.
The Supreme Court Appears Poised to Protect the Presidency—and Donald Trump
In arguments about Presidential immunity, the conservative Justices, who avoided mentioning Trump, made clear that they are less concerned with holding him accountable than with shielding former Presidents from retribution.
Why Robert Hur Called Biden an “Elderly Man with a Poor Memory”
In his first interview after the release of his controversial report, the former special counsel insists that it was not his job to write for the public.
The Supreme Court and the Risks of January 6, 2025
The Justices seem to want to avoid a major decision about whether Trump can serve as President—but if they do so they may set off a national crisis.
The Future of Academic Freedom
As the Israel-Hamas war provokes claims about unacceptable speech, the ability to debate difficult subjects is in renewed peril.
Could a Trump Win Put His Running Mate in Office?
Senate Republicans’ brief in the Supreme Court surprisingly argues just that.
University Presidents Under Fire
No one should be duped into applauding a McCarthyesque spectacle of members of Congress demanding firings by universities.
What Would Sandra Day O’Connor Have Thought About Affirmative Action for Men?
For decades, college-admissions offices have quietly imposed higher standards on female applicants.
The Supreme Court’s Self-Excusing Ethics Code
Under the Court’s new rules, the Justices appear not to have made any mistakes.
The End of Legacy Admissions Could Transform College Access
After the fall of affirmative action, liberals and conservatives want to eliminate benefits for children of alumni. Could their logic lead to reparations?
The Challenges of Trump’s Third, Momentous Indictment
No case in our system of justice could more directly and fundamentally address the stakes of American democracy and the rule of law.
The Supreme Court Overturns Fifty Years of Precedent on Affirmative Action
A conservative Court holds that student-body diversity is not a “compelling interest.”
After Affirmative Action Ends
The next big question for school admissions will likely be the legality of “race-neutral” methods that are designed with the continuing goal of producing diverse student bodies.
What Justice John Paul Stevens’s Papers Reveal About Affirmative Action
Twenty years ago, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote, in a draft opinion, that white applicants could not be favored over Asian Americans. Why did she delete those lines—and why did Justice Clarence Thomas adopt them in his own opinion?