Law School: What's It For?

President Trump on Friday commuted the prison sentence of former New York congressman George Santos. There was a time when we would refer to Santos as "disgraced former congressman" or something similar, but that would imply that there is some level of degeneracy that would warrant the "disgraced" label, which is obviously no longer the case. Santos is not disgraced. He is celebrated for his many crimes and happily did a round of interviews following his release from federal prison.

Trump released Santos because he is a loyal Republican. How do I know this? Because that is what he said.

Maybe you're only dimly aware of Santos. Maybe you're thinking what he did mustn't have been all that bad. Well, let's check in with President Trump's own Justice Department about the nature of his crimes. From the DOJ press release at the time of his sentencing in April:

“Today, George Santos was finally held accountable for the mountain of lies, theft, and fraud he perpetrated.  For the defendant, it was judgment day, and for his many victims including campaign donors, political parties, government agencies, elected bodies, his own family members, and his constituents, it is justice,” stated U.S. Attorney Durham.  “To Mr. Santos and other dishonest individuals of that ilk, who lie, steal identities and commit frauds to get elected to public office, this prosecution speaks to the truth that my Office is committed to aggressively rooting out public corruption and that public officials who criminally abuse our electoral process will end up in a federal prison.”

Yes, that's the same U.S. Attorney John J. Durham who spent years investigating the FBI investigation of Russia's alleged ties with President Trump's 2016 campaign. I'm assuming Durham knows crime when he sees it, and he seems to have seen a lot of crime when looking into the escapades of one George Santos.

Santos submitted false reports to the Federal Election Commission. He sought out the elderly and infirm to steal their credit card information to line his pockets. He solicited campaign contributions that he then used to "make personal purchases, including of designer clothing, to withdraw cash, to discharge personal debts, and to transfer money to his associates." He falsely claimed unemployment benefits. He lied to the U.S. House of Representatives. In other words, he seems to have earned each of the 87 months in federal prison that he was sentenced to.

But no matter. Santos is a free man today, not because he deserves to be free, not because he served his time or paid his debts etc. etc. No, he's a free man because noted felon Donald J. Trump decided to reward a political ally at the expense of the entire system of laws that has at least nominally made America a shining city on a hill, beacon of democracy etc. etc.

Of course, L'affaire Santos is just one example of Trump pulverizing the rule of law into a fine paste. But it's worth highlighting because it's so cartoonish, because Santos is so obviously a fraudster deserving of punishment. If we're going to let people like Santos skate due to their political allegiances, it's actually and not hyperbolically difficult to make the case that the rule of law in this shining city/beacon endures with any kind of integrity.

Want other examples? Take your pick. They are happening daily. How about DOJ attorneys lying in court?

How about President Trump literally demolishing the White House without the necessary approvals?

I've been wondering for a while about the effects of all of this on law schools, as in, actually wondering, not just in a shitposting kind of way, but really and truly wondering about the business of teaching the law in an environment of rampant and accelerating lawlessness. Let's check in with my alma mater the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State. Here's the estimated cost of attendance according to the school itself:

2025-2026 Student Budget

Direct Expenses (fixed costs that you as a student don’t control)

Ohio Resident Annual Tuition $35,650

Nonresident Annual Tuition $50,902

Indirect Expenses*- 1L Students

Estimated Cost for Books, Course Materials, Supplies and Equipment $3,080

Living Expenses, including Food and Housing  $15,902

Miscellaneous Expenses $3,350

Transportation $732

Loan Fees $200

OSU Health Insurance** $3,918

Indirect Expenses*- 2L Students

Estimated Cost for Books, Course Materials, Supplies and Equipment $3,080

Living Expenses, including Food and Housing  $15,902

Miscellaneous Expenses $3,350

Transportation $732

Loan Fees $200

Licensure $700

OSU Health Insurance** $3,918

Indirect Expenses*- 3L Students

Estimated Cost for Books, Course Materials, Supplies and Equipment $3,080

Living Expenses, including Food and Housing  $15,902

Miscellaneous Expenses $3,350

Transportation $732

Loan Fees $200

Licensure $1,322

OSU Health Insurance** $3,918

Talking in round numbers, let's call that about $190,000 for 3 years for in-state students, and about $235,000 for 3 years for out-of-state students. These numbers of course can vary widely from student to student, but you get the point: The numbers are big and are even bigger for more selective schools.

What are you getting for that investment in 2025? I know what I got when I was in law school at Ohio State almost 20 years ago, which, as far as I know, is what every law student continues to get today: instruction in constitutional law, criminal law, administrative law, contracts, torts, property and civil procedure. The difference is that I was taking those foundational courses toward the tail end of the second term of the second President Bush. I remember feeling like a wizened cynic when I chuckled under my breath at my criminal law professor's stated belief that newly appointed Chief Justice John Roberts was the right man (temperamentally and experientially) for the job, and not just a partisan hack. I wish he had been right, but he was not. The truth is that I took those courses at a time when, in hindsight, American democracy was under strain but still recognizable as a functioning democracy. The same cannot be said for law students today.

What should law schools teach when the Supreme Court says the president is immune from prosecution so long as he says the crimes he is committing are official acts? When Congress forfeits all of its Article I authority? When criminals are pardoned or their sentences commuted based on their political views or contributions, and political enemies are selectively prosecuted? When the military murders people at sea with no evidence of wrongdoing? When troops are sent into American cities to battle crowds of inflatable frogs?

Should they teach law as history, what the law used to be and may be again? Should they teach it as it currently is, a corrupt spoils system based on the will of one man? Should they teach it as it will need to be to undo the damage of this degenerate era?

I don't have the answers to these questions. I wish I did.