Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman critiques a recent decision by a New York trial court holding that a woman who was allegedly fired by a male boss because she was “too cute” and causing the boss’s wife to be jealous had not alleged facts amounting to unlawful sex discrimination. Grossman explains why the ruling is based on unsound reasoning and misunderstands sex discrimination law.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies comments on last week’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Foster v. Chatman, in which the Court considered whether a prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges to remove all eligible black jurors constituted impermissible race discrimination. Margulies argues that true criminal justice reform requires us to acknowledge the pervasiveness of implicit bias in society and let go of the idea that the behavior is an individual wrong by one person against another, and reconceive it as a social wrong by a person against the community.
John W. Dean, former counsel to President Nixon, explains why any comparisons between Donald Trump’s and Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaigns are completely off the mark. Dean argues that Barry Goldwater entered public service to make government better, whereas Donald Trump’s goals are completely self-serving.
Hofstra University law professors Joanna L. Grossman and Grant M. Hayden explain how recent controversies over same-sex marriage, transgender use of bathroom, and differentiated high school graduation attire for males and females reflect a collective unwillingness to blur gender lines. Grossman and Hayden further describe how these controversies are really simply part of a larger game of gender oppression.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda comments on a practice by federal prosecutors of settling some cases by requiring defendants to pay money to specific charities—organizations that tend to support the present administration. Rotunda explains why this practice is ethically unsound and calls for an end to it.
Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar discusses a challenge to the Affordable Care Act (popularly known as Obamacare) that recently succeeded in a lower federal court. That challenge, brought by the U.S. House of Representatives, raises the threshold issue whether the House can sue the president to vindicate their legislative powers. Amar explains the few notable times the Supreme Court has considered whether legislators or legislatures could sue the executive branch, and he compares and contrasts those cases with the present challenge.
Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton comments on the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Zubik v. Burwell, in which the Court via a per curiam opinion declined to interpret the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as applied to the Affordable Care Act. Hamilton also describes the Do No Harm Act, which is a bill proposed this week that attempts to carve out of RFRA some of its worst incentives and inclinations. While Hamilton argues that RFRA should be repealed outright, she acknowledges that the Do No Harm Act is absolutely a step in the right direction.
Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, in which the Court unremarkably affirmed its position that a plaintiff in federal court must have suffered (or be in danger of imminently suffering) a “concrete and particularized injury.” Dorf explains why, in cases such as Spokeo that involve one private party suing another, the Court should abandon the concreteness requirement of judicial standing.
Cornell University law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, in which the Court will decide whether evidence located during a search incident to arrest after an unlawful stop will be admissible in evidence against the arrestee. Colb discusses this and also the broader question of the future role of the exclusionary rule in the law of the Fourth Amendment.
Cornell University Law professor Joe Margulies reflects on the life and accomplishments of his friend and colleague Michael Ratner, who passed away last week as a result of complications from cancer. As Margulies points out, Ratner recognized that dignity withheld from some is denied to all, and he suffered greatly for the great work he did.
Former counsel to the president John W. Dean analyzes Donald Trump’s proposal to build a wall along the Mexican-United States border. Dean explains why the wall is not only logistically unfeasible, but also why it is simply a bad idea as a matter of policy.
Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton explains how the Sandusky scandal at Penn State revealed that ignoring and covering up child sex abuse over an extended period of time is not unique to the Catholic church. Hamilton argues that Joe Paterno knew of the child sex abuse long before it came to public light but that he chose to keep Sandusky because doing so served his own ends.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains how Donald Trump’s recent comments about the federal debt reveal that he is even more irresponsible—though only slightly—than the Republican establishment on this issue. Buchanan describes the problems with repudiating the debt as Trump suggests the government do.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda comments on the phenomenon where individuals who can remain anonymous tend to be less altruistic than those who are singled out. Rotunda draws upon the story of the murder of Kitty Genovese and other similar situations in order to illustrate people’s tendency not to act when they are not specifically asked to act.
Vikram David Amar, dean and law professor at University of Illinois Law, and Greg Miarecki, the director of career services at Illinois Law, offer ten tips to law students on how to get the most out of their summer legal jobs.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb comments on a case on which the the U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral argument that presents the question whether a state law may, absent a search warrant, attach criminal penalties to a DUI suspect’s refusal to undergo a chemical test of the suspect’s blood, urine, or breath to determine alcohol concentration. Colb predicts that the Court will decide that any test of a person’s internal state—whether through a blood draw, a breathalyzer, or a urine sample—requires a search warrant in the absence of exigent circumstances.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf considers whether long delays in carrying out capital punishment render the practice unconstitutional. Dorf responds specifically to an argument put forth by the late Justice Scalia that execution delays are chiefly the result of the extensive procedures that the Court’s liberals have required for carrying out an execution.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna L. Grossman and Duke law professor Katharine T. Bartlett explain why a high school policy prescribing one color of robes for boys and another color for girls violates both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX. Grossman and Bartlett describe how this controversy could be easily resolved, as other schools have resolved other similar controversies.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman comments on a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit holding that a school district cannot bar a transgender boy from using the boys’ restroom. Grossman explains the reasoning behind the appellate court’s decision and calls into question the rhetoric that single-sex bathrooms are somehow “sacred”—in light of the many scandals that take place in these places.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies discusses the challenges of comprehensive criminal justice reform. Even for victims of wrongful detention and torture, he argues that war crimes prosecutions are not the answer. With an eye toward a crime-free society, Margulies presents a compelling argument as to why the current, punitive nature of our carceral state should be dismantled.