UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin comments on a case heard by the US Supreme Court this week raising questions about the Establishment Clause. Griffin summarizes some of the main points of each of the advocates in the case and argues that the Court should provide a clearer standard—a straightforward rule that one religion cannot be preferred to another.
Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb considers the significance in policing “original” meanings of words, such as “meat” and “marriage.” She point out that in both contexts, arguments over the meaning of the word are rooted in strong feelings about status and do not truly reflect a concern with a risk of confusion.
SMU Dedman School of Law professors Joanna L. Grossman and Grant M. Hayden comment on a concurring opinion by a Fifth Circuit judge that goes well out of its way to make illogical arguments regarding transgender discrimination under Title VII. Grossman and Hayden briefly describe the history of courts’ interpretation of Title VII and explain, point by point, why Judge James Ho’s writing is merely an “op-ed piece masquerading as a concurring opinion.”
GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan looks at recent electoral developments in the United Kingdom and the United States (Brexit and Trump’s election) and argues that the justification that Leave/Trump voters “voted their pocketbooks and fears” is no longer supportable. Buchanan points out that democracy does not require that one side excuse the choices of voters who, in the face of overwhelming evidence, voted the wrong way.
Marci A. Hamliton—professor and resident senior fellow in the Program for Research on Religion at the University of Pennsylvania and founder, CEO, and Academic Director of CHILD USA—describes the similarities and differences between the Vatican’s gathering of bishops to address clergy sex abuse scandals and the federal judge’s ruling in the case of Jeffrey Epstein over sex trafficking scandals. Hamilton points out that decision in the Epstein case is a victory for child sex abuse victims, while the approach of the Catholic Church is already misguided.
Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar and professor Jason Mazzone continue their discussion of whether law reviews may take race and gender into account in selecting members and articles. In this second of a three-part series of columns, Amar and Mazzone analyze some of the key substantive arguments made by the plaintiff in the lawsuit.
GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that Democrats should embrace progressive policies rather than shy away from them in an effort to avoid being described as “extreme left” by Republicans. Buchanan points out that many of Democrats’ progressive policies are hugely popular, and Republicans will vilify them regardless.
Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on a challenge presently facing public (and many private) universities: how best to handle student organizations’ invitations of contentious speakers to speak on campus. Amar points out the legal limitations to some proposed solutions and argues that the law should adapt to a changing world to allow universities more options to craft data-informed and viewpoint-neutral policies.
GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that while rhetoric and symbolism have always played an important role in politics, today’s Republicans are running an entire campaign on an incorrect definition of “socialism.” Buchanan points out that many people are discovering—to the chagrin of Republicans—that socialism means progressive taxation, increasing workers’ pay, and reducing the costs of higher education, rather than collectivist worker camps, and that it might actually be a good thing.
Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency after Congress denied him most of the funding he requested for a border wall. Dorf describes the legal framework that allows the president to do so even in the absence of an emergency and points out that combined actions of Congress, the courts, and the People have created this situation.
Marci A. Hamilton—professor and resident senior fellow in the Program for Research on Religion at the University of Pennsylvania and founder, CEO, and Academic Director of CHILD USA—comments on New York’s recent passage of the New York Child Victims Act and the troubling class action lawsuit filed purportedly on behalf of victims on the same day. Hamilton explains why class action lawsuits are inconsistent with child sex abuse victim empowerment and healing, pointing out that such lawsuits are designed for circumstances where the victims have identical or nearly identical harm, which is not the case with child sex abuse.
Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on an abortion bill that is currently under consideration in Virginia, arguing that the bill would excessively liberalize abortion laws in that state. Colb, who is pro-choice, points out that pro-choice theorists and activists should discern exactly why they believe in the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and draw—rather than resist—rational distinctions between a ball of cells and a newborn baby.
In this first of a series of columns, Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar and professor Jason Mazzone comment on a legal challenge to the practice by Harvard Law Review of taking into consideration race, gender, and other demographic factors when making membership decisions. Amar and Mazzone highlight some of the hurdles the challenger faces in establishing standing— the right to have the dispute heard in a federal forum.
GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why Senator Elizabeth Warren’s proposal of a wealth tax is not only constitutional, but good policy. Buchanan points out that even in the worst case scenario, Warren’s proposal can pass constitutional muster.
Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the recognition by the United States and some other constitutional democracies of Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s legitimate leader pending new elections. Dorf points out that many countries suffer under incompetent, corrupt, and authoritarian leaders just as Venezuela did under Nicolás Maduro, yet constitutional democracies typically do not rally behind the ouster of those leaders. What makes Maduro’s case different?
NYU law professor Samuel Estreicher comments on Kisor v. Wilkie, a case currently before the US Supreme Court that raises the narrow question whether a court should accept an interpretation by the Department of Veterans Affairs of its own technical regulation but also gets at a broader question of judicial deference more generally. Estreicher argues that when agencies interpret their own regulations, courts should afford those interpretations only Skidmore respect, not the higher Chevron-style deference that has come to be commonplace.