1. U.S. AND ISRAEL LAUNCH STRIKE ON IRAN

The U.S. and Israel sharply escalated attacks on Iran after the reported killing of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, with strikes hitting ballistic-missile sites and other military targets and triggering heavy casualties. Iran retaliated with missile and drone attacks, including strikes that killed three U.S. service members, and the conflict began spreading beyond the three main players as Hezbollah entered the fight and Gulf states warned they could respond to attacks on their territory. At the same time, the sudden leadership vacuum in Iran raised the stakes, as President Trump suggested he was open to talks with “new leadership” even as he warned Iran against further retaliation. Write a short policy memo of one to two paragraphs answering this question: Does the leadership vacuum in Iran make de-escalation more likely or less likely? Your memo should explain two specific escalation pressures described in the article, such as retaliation patterns, widening actors, or risks to civilians, and it should also identify one concrete diplomatic opening mentioned in the report. End by explaining two signals you would watch for over the next 72 hours that would help you judge whether the conflict is calming down or getting worse.

2. HENRIETTA LACKS’ FAMILY SETTLES WITH NOVARTIS

Henrietta Lacks’ cells, taken without her consent in 1951, became the HeLa cell line, an enormously influential tool used in medical research for decades. Her family sued Novartis, arguing the company profited through patents and products tied to HeLa-based work without permission from her estate, and the case has now been settled under confidential terms. The dispute reflects a larger ethical debate about consent, ownership, and profit in medicine, especially given the history of racial inequity in American health care. Write an ethical analysis paragraph that explains why consent still matters even when the scientific benefits are substantial, using this case as your example, and proposes one compensation approach you think is fair. Include one strength and one weakness of your approach and propose a clear rule you think should guide researchers and companies when they use human tissue today. Make sure your rule balances research progress, patient rights, and public trust.

3. COLUMBIA’S SHIFT IN RESPONSE TO STUDENT DETENTIONS

Columbia University’s response to a student detention by federal immigration agents changed dramatically compared with a prior, widely criticized moment: instead of issuing a restrained statement, the university quickly escalated by alerting campus, contacting officials, and publicly condemning the agent conduct it described. The dispute included conflicting accounts about how agents gained entry and what justifications were used, but the larger issue in the article is how institutions decide whether to act as neutral administrators or as advocates for student safety and due process. Write one analytical paragraph explaining what best accounts for Columbia’s change in posture, and decide whether you think the shift is driven mostly by principle, politics, or risk management. Your paragraph should include two specific actions the university took this time, it should explain one incentive that could have pushed leaders to respond faster, and it should end by evaluating whether you think this more forceful approach is likely to last when public attention moves on.

4. REP OMAR’S STATE OF THE UNION GUEST ARRESTED

Representative Ilhan Omar criticized the arrest of her guest, Aliya Rahman, during President Trump’s State of the Union address after Rahman was charged with unlawful conduct for standing during the speech. Rahman, a U.S. citizen who had previously been injured during an immigration enforcement encounter, said she was standing silently when Capitol Police removed her and that officers pulled on her shoulders despite her warning about existing injuries. Capitol Police stated that demonstrating is prohibited at the event and said Rahman refused orders to sit down. The dispute highlights tensions over protest, decorum, disability accommodations, and the boundaries of lawful conduct in highly controlled political settings. It also raises broader questions about how rules are enforced and whether similar actions by different people are treated consistently. Write a paragraph evaluating the competing principles at stake in this case. In your response, explain the government’s interest in maintaining order and security during the State of the Union, and describe why strict enforcement rules might exist in that setting. Then analyze the counterarguments involving free expression, equal treatment, disability considerations, and proportional use of force. Conclude by explaining which constitutional concern you believe is strongest in this situation and why, while acknowledging at least one serious counterargument.

5. TRANSGENDER KANSANS SUE AFTER LICENSES ARE INVALIDATED

A new Kansas law requires the gender marker on driver’s licenses to match sex at birth and invalidated licenses that had previously been changed, creating immediate legal and daily-life consequences for affected residents. Plaintiffs argue the law violates state constitutional protections such as due process, equal protection, personal autonomy, and compelled expression, while supporters argue it is needed for accurate record-keeping and enforcement. The article highlights how quickly the policy took effect and how identity documents can become flashpoints for privacy, safety, and discrimination concerns. Write a mock appellate argument in paragraph form that presents both sides as strongly as possible. In the first half of your paragraph, explain the state’s strongest justification for the law and why officials might argue it serves a legitimate government purpose. In the second half of your paragraph, explain the plaintiffs’ strongest constitutional arguments and the real-world harms they say the policy creates. End by writing one judge-style question that exposes the hardest unresolved issue in the case, such as the lack of a grace period, the choice to invalidate existing licenses, or whether the policy compels speech.