Imagine curating a "virtual museum" for every landmark case you teach—a dedicated space where students and colleagues could explore primary documents, track the litigation's history, and engage with expert analysis. For most legal educators, the sheer technical effort required to build such a resource would make this vision impractical. What if that barrier could be all but eliminated?
We invite you to tour the prototype for this new vision; its temporary quarters are at https://sethchandler.github.io/Trump-v-CASA/. This website serves as a virtual museum for the Supreme Court's pivotal ruling on universal injunctions. Its "exhibits" include the full opinions, lower court filings, related precedents, a detailed timeline, and practice pointers. It also contains human-AI collaborations analyzing the opinions in the case, slide presentations suitable for a lecture or CLE and imaginative features such as a synthetic dialog between leading faculty experts on the Supreme Court opinion. The platform is also designed to interface with other analytical tools like Google's touted NotebookLM, allowing users to extend their research and capabilities directly from the museum's collection.
While the site is a valuable scholarly tool, its true significance is as a testament to a new, accessible method of creation. This entire virtual museum was conceived and constructed under the guidance of Professor Seth J. Chandler of the University of Houston Law Center, who directed a team of specialized AIs. From concept to the integration of embedded presentations and source materials, the project took approximately ten hours to complete. With the prototype now built, it is likely that faculty without highly specialized web development training can assemble a similar virtual museum for any case or area of law in half that time.
The process was a collaboration: Claude Code acted as the web architect, Gemini provided core legal analysis, and Professor Chandler served as the expert curator and editor. This human-AI partnership makes the creation of sophisticated educational environments remarkably efficient. Neither Professor Chandler nor the AI could possibly have created the website on their own. The website invites legal educators to think creatively about how to use AI to create more exploratory legal materials in ways that would otherwise have required ten times the hours and significant budgets.
You can follow Professor Chandler's exploration of AI in legal education at http://legaled.ai.