Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton assesses the different arguments presented during this week’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the same-sex marriage cases.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses the competing values at issue when an ultra-Orthodox Jewish man on an airplane requests not to be seated next to a woman who is not his wife.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses one aspect the same-sex marriage case that the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing today, Obergefell v. Hodges. Specifically, Grossman considers whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to recognize out-of-state marriages in the context of the history of interstate marriage recognition laws.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda warns against the California bill recently introduced in the state senate that would allow physician-assisted suicide. Rotunda cites other jurisdictions in which physician-assisted suicide is permissible in arguing against the bill’s passage.
UC Davis law professors Vikram David Amar and Alan Brownstein discuss state religious freedom restoration acts (RFRAs). In this first of a two-part series of columns, Amar and Brownstein argue that whether a state RFRA should apply in private litigation should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
George Washington law professor Neil Buchanan describes Republicans’ persistent technique of undercutting, then blaming, the IRS for the nation’s tax woes.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf describes the journey of the issue of same-sex marriage that has led to its reaching the U.S. Supreme Court this Term. Dorf explains what this path says about the relationship between social change and legal change.
Permalink to Afterbirth: The Supreme Court’s Ruling in Young v. UPS Leaves Many Questions Unanswered
Afterbirth: The Supreme Court’s Ruling in Young v. UPS Leaves Many Questions Unanswered Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman and University of Pittsburg law professor Deborah Brake continue their discussion of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Young v. UPS, in which the Court held that a pregnant UPS driver who was denied a light-duty accommodation that was routinely made available to other employees with similar lifting restrictions should have the opportunity to prove that the employer’s denial was discriminatory.
Former counsel to the president John W. Dean reflects on the life and achievements of American historian Stanley Kutler. Dean describes Stanley’s role in setting the public record straight with respect to Watergate and laments that the New York Times never seemed to quite understand Watergate, as evidenced by its gratuitously repeating a false charge about Stanley’s book in its obituary on him.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton describes how the conservative Christian agenda is steadily making its way into law, first through the federal RFRA, and then subsequently in other ways.
Cornell University visiting law professor Joseph Margulies comments on the recent death of Walter Scott, an unarmed black man whose murder by a police officer was caught on video and seen by the world. Margulies argues that Scott’s murder, while highly unusual and anomalous in some ways, also exemplifies the relationship between law enforcement and black citizens.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda critiques the suggestion that President Obama simply disregard the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision if it rules that the Affordable Care Act does not allow the federal government to subsidize federal health exchanges.
UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar comments on the case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding Texas’s rejection of a custom license plate application that included the Confederate flag. Specifically, Amar considers three First Amendment issues raised during the recent oral argument for that case.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses a recent criminal case out of Indiana, in which a woman was convicted and sentenced for feticide. Colb argues that while the situation as a whole is a tragedy, it also highlights a failure of the State of Indiana to have empathy for women in pain whose circumstances call for mercy rather than a pure retributive impulse.
In light of recent controversy in Indiana and Arkansas over RFRAs, Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses the nuanced question whether courts should interpret a general RFRA to apply in private litigation if the statute is silent on the matter.
Cornell University visiting law professor Joseph Margulies discusses the widespread phenomenon of conversations about criminal justice reform that notably exclude any mention of race.
Former counsel to the president John W. Dean discusses cyber law issues related to public shaming with the Internet Law Center’s Bennet Kelley.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb compares medical screening tests with dog sniffs for narcotics with respect to their propensity to yield Type I errors—also known as false positives. In particular, Colb references Justice Souter’s dissenting opinion in Illinois v. Caballes, in which he opined that the possibility that dogs would incorrectly indicate the presence of narcotics and lead to an invasive search meant that such dog sniffs constitute searches for Fourth Amendment purposes.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton discusses the dangers not only of the recently passed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), but also the even more extreme Arkansas RFRA that just passed in that state.
