Marci A. Hamilton, professor at the University of Pennsylvania and CEO of CHILD USA, explains why statute of limitations (SOL) reform for sex abuse and assault victims is necessary not only for children, but also for college students. Hamilton describes the nationwide epidemic of sexual abuse on college and university campuses and argues that SOL reform is the best way to ensure these victims have access to justice.

Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on a recent decision by a panel of state-court judges in North Carolina striking down partisan gerrymandering schemes as violating that state’s constitution. Amar had argued after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Rucho v. Common Cause that state courts would have to address partisan gerrymandering on “independent and adequate state-law grounds” (rather than on federal constitutional grounds), which is exactly what the North Carolina court did.

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on a battle over what products may carry the label “milk.” Colb proposes that the dairy industry opposes plant-based milks (such as soy milk or almond milk) from identifying their products using the word “milk” not because of any real risk of confusing consumers or market harm, but as a show of dominance in response to exposed vulnerability.

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments on a law recently passed (and challenged) in Tennessee that purports to prohibit ministers ordained online from presiding over marriages in that state. Grossman explains why the Tennessee legislature passed the law and why it is being challenged, and she points out that based on the judge’s questions during the proceedings, the state may ultimately have to show at trial how the law is rationally related to its legitimate regulation of entry into marriage—regardless of whether it burdens the free exercise of religion.

Clinical bioethicist Charles E. Binkley and attorney David S. Kemp consider whether—and how—the Food and Drug Administration might reasonably regulate vaping devices, also known as electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS), so that they can serve as an ethical alternative to combustible tobacco products. Specifically, Binkley and Kemp and call for further longitudinal data on the risks and benefits of ENDS and propose certain contingencies that must be in place before ENDS can serve as a viable replacement for conventional combustible tobacco products.

University of Florida Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why providing free college tuition for all students is the best investment the United States can make in its own future. Buchanan addresses several of the most common arguments against free college tuition, arguing that they purely moralistic objections that do not hold up to scrutiny.

Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar offers three key observations about a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit concerning “faithless” electors in the Electoral College. Specifically, Amar explains why the potential impact of the decision on the National Popular Vote movement is most likely limited, not extensive.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf considers whether a possible Supreme Court ruling in a “faithless elector” case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit could end the National Popular Vote (NPV) movement, which attempts to circumvent the Electoral College by interstate compact. Dorf provides a short background of NPV and the Tenth Circuit’s decision, and he explains why a decision by the Court decides to affirm the Tenth Circuit’s reasoning would threaten NPV.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin responds to Professor Patricia Churchland’s book, Conscience: The Origins of Moral Intuition, offering contrasting views on morality. While Griffin recommends reading the book, she offers a differing view from that of the author, arguing that the physical brain can and does give rise to reason-centered moral rules to ethics.

In this second of a two-part series of columns, University of Florida Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that Americans do not have to—and should not—support Trump simply because he claims (erroneously) to have revitalized the economy. Buchanan argues that for a voter to cast a vote purely on account of a perceived improved economy would require her to devalue every other issue—effectively selling the country’s soul.

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on a decision the U.S. Supreme Court issued toward the end of the last term, in which a majority of the Court ruled that as long as police have probable cause for an arrest, it does not matter if their actual motivation for arresting someone violates the person’s First Amendment rights. Colb considers whether such pretextual, speech-based arrests are a problem, how they differ from other pretextual arrests, and how the ruling in this case resembles the law of a seemingly different area—post-conviction incarceration for convicted criminals.

Marci A. Hamilton, professor at the University of Pennsylvania and CEO of CHILD USA, calls for an end to legislative exemptions to mandatory childhood vaccinations, except those that are absolutely necessary. Hamilton explains why these exemptions undermine the public good and endanger children.

BU Law emerita professor Tamar Frankel dissects a manipulative email message purporting to offer a once-in-a-lifetime investment opportunity. Frankel explains why the message is effective at deceiving many recipients and cautions investors to be wary of similar advertisements.

In this first of a two-part series of columns, University of Florida Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan responds to the claim that President Trump is helping the U.S. economy. Buchanan argues that beneath the “somewhat good” aggregate numbers, most people in this country are suffering genuine damage, including not having health care insurance and being perpetually on the verge of financial ruin.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf offers some advice to new law students, highlighting the importance of being able to distinguish among different types of legal questions—easy questions, complicated questions, and indeterminate questions. Dorf explains what he means by each type of question and concludes with a caveat and a warning.

Guest columnist Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—expresses concern that Democrats are joining President Trump in undermining the public’s trust in the judiciary. Sarat specifically discusses an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by five Democratic senators in which the senators criticize the bias and partisanship of the Court’s conservative justices.

NYU law professor Samuel Estreicher comments on a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in which that court enjoined the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from publishing its guidance on the applicability of Title VII’s disparate impact analysis to employers’ use of criminal records in hiring decisions. Estreicher explains why the federal appeals court was incorrect in holding that the EEOC violated the notice-and-comment procedures for rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb cautions against using a disgust reaction alone to justify legislation—particularly legislation involving criminal penalties. Colb points out that disgust can sometimes help us determine that something bad is in fact going on, but we should not to allow disgust to power our moral choices without interrogation.

Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on the Trump administration’s recent legal challenge to California’s law that denies ballot access to presidential candidates who have chosen not to release their tax returns. Without opining as to whether that challenge is likely to succeed or whether it is a good idea for states to enact such laws, Amar explains why, as a normative matter, the arguments in favor of striking down the law are misplaced, or at the very least, overly simplistic.

Illinois Law professors Lesley Wexler and Jennifer Robbennolt respond to a recent op-ed by Professor Cass Sunstein, in which Sunstein suggests that an apology is a risky strategy for a public figure seeking election or re-election. Wexler and Robbennolt point out three troubling aspects of Sunstein’s op-ed and argue that rather than abstain from giving apologies altogether, perhaps public figures should study apologies and learn how to give—and live—a good one.