Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies laments the discourse currently surrounding the presidential candidates, particularly Donald Trump, and argues that we should be more focused on the candidates’ answers to important questions about inequality, the criminal justice system, climate change, and global insecurity.
Former counsel to the president John W. Dean discusses Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump and the authoritarian leader personality type. Dean argues that while Trump may be the early leader in the polls, he will ultimately not win presidency of the United States.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton discusses the federal First Amendment Defense Act—a bill that she argues is actually itself unconstitutional.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman comments on a recent ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that sexual orientation discrimination constitutes sex discrimination for the purposes of Title VII.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda discusses a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with respect to the disqualification of a lawyer from representing a client due to a conflict of interest. Rotunda cautions that the decision, if read broadly, could signal major risks for patent firms, but he argues that the decision need not be read so broadly.
Law professor and dean designate of the University of Illinois College of Law Vikram David Amar offers a few thoughts about how much conservatives lost in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014–15 term.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses a proposal by Adam Benforado, author of Unfair: The New Science of Criminal Justice, that one way to improve the criminal justice system would be to conduct and record trials outside of the jury’s presence, then to show edited versions of the recordings to juries after all of the evidence has been presented. Colb explains how this proposal could potentially improve the system and addresses some potential obstacles to its implementation.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that provides a window into how the Roberts Court understands its role with respect to economic regulation.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies describes the abysmal conditions under which Tariq Ba Odah is suffering at Guantanamo, despite being cleared by every national security agency.
Former counsel to the president John W. Dean laments the willingness—even enthusiasm—of Bill Cosby’s legal defense team to engage in ethically questionable tactics with respect to Cosby’s victims, including using the media to defame the victims.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton comments on the latest revelations about Bill Cosby arising out of a deposition from a civil lawsuit from ten years ago. Hamilton explains why there are so many secrets about sexual assault, including short statutes of limitations and sealed admissions in civil cases, and calls for greater transparency and publicity.
UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar comments on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision holding that “legislature”—as used in the Elections Clause of Article I, Section 4, of the Constitution—includes within its definition the people of a state undertaking direct democracy.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman and Stanford University law professor Lawrence Friedman comment on a recent legal challenge—based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision in Obergefell v. Hodges—to state anti-polygamy laws.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda calls for the end of the Export-Import Bank. Rotunda describes the Bank as a symbol of corporate welfare and government waste and highlights some of the ways in which the Bank is a drain on the American economy.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in City of Los Angeles v. Patel, in which the Court held facially unconstitutional a statute requiring hotel operators to record, keep, and disclose upon demand by law enforcement certain information about their guests. Colb argues that the Court’s reliance on Planned Parenthood v. Casey to find the statute unconstitutional reinforces the link between substantive and procedural privacy.
University of Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry discusses a new type of mobile app that maps illness in much the same way other apps map weather patterns and warns of the privacy implications these apps pose.
UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., in which the Court held that Texas could, consistent with the First Amendment, reject a specialty license plate design application due to its prominent use of the Confederate battle flag. Amar argues that the Court’s reasoning might lead to problems in future disputes and offers a different rationale for reaching the same result that would have avoided such problems.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses three possible methods that some states might use to resist implementing the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent same-sex marriage ruling.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton discusses and contrasts the constitutional requirements—and limitations—on clergy and government officials.
Amid nationwide discussions about removing the Confederate battle flag from public display, Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies comments on the role of symbols and the American criminal justice system.
