Austin Sarat

On August 12, 2026, Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College, published a commentary in Verdict, Justia’s legal analysis and commentary publication. Sarat’s commentary is titled “Trump’s Arresting State,” where he examines what he regards as an increasingly consequential feature of the Trump administration: the use or threatened use of arrest, prosecution, fines, and other criminal penalties not simply against political opponents, but as a means of pressuring state and local officials to cooperate with federal policy objectives.

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

Historical Background

The history of capital punishment in the United States reflects a cycle of reform, reinstatement, and continued controversy. In 1972, the Supreme Court’s decision in Furman v. Georgia temporarily halted executions nationwide, finding that death penalty statutes were applied in arbitrary and capricious ways. Just four years later, in Gregg v. Georgia the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty. This decision upheld new death penalty statutes that aimed to address the arbitrariness concerns raised in Furman by providing revised sentencing guidelines and procedures for capital cases. These revised guidelines typically included a bifurcated trial process (separate guilt and sentencing phases) and required the identification of aggravating circumstances before a death sentence could be imposed.

Since then, abolition efforts have proceeded along two main paths: statutory repeal by state legislatures and judicial decisions striking down death penalty schemes. A small number of jurisdictions, such as Michigan and Puerto Rico, have gone further by embedding abolition directly into their constitutions; a step that offers stronger, more lasting protection.

Articles Tagged with Austin Sarat

Federal Power, Criminal Enforcement, and the States: Examining Austin Sarat’s “Trumps Arresting State”

From Repeal to Permanence: Why Ending the Death Penalty Requires Constitutional Change

Historical Background