Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses a lawsuit filed in the U.S. Supreme Court by Nebraska and Oklahoma against Colorado, alleging that the latter state’s legalization of marijuana undermines their ability to maintain their own prohibitions of the substance.

Cornell University visiting law professor Joseph Margulies discusses the growing role of radical individualism in political culture and how it leads to communities on all sides of the political spectrum not taking responsibility for violence their rhetoric causes.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda discusses the comments by MIT economist and Obamacare consultant Jonathan Gruber and the principle of the wisdom of crowds.

Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses a Mississippi case in which that state’s supreme court held that the children of a failed marriage cannot sue a responsible third party for “alienation of affection.”

Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb considers whether, why, and to what extent the law should proscribe sexual relations with individuals suffering from Alzheimer’s disease and other permanent impairments on the basis of their incapacity to consent.

U.C. Davis law professors Vikram David Amar and Alan Brownstein reflect on the five most significant constitutional developments of 2014.

George Washington law professor and economist Neil Buchanan describes the starkly different political responses to the revelation of wrongdoing by the IRS earlier this year, and the more recent Senate Intelligence Committee’s “torture report.” Buchanan argues that this contrast illustrates how politicians too often overreact to non-news yet refuse to respond to truly horrifying news.

Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court recently granted review to consider whether Texas may constitutionally deny an application for a custom state-issued license plate with a Confederate battle flag logo.

George Washington law professor and economist Neil Buchanan argues that Republicans in Congress have effectively used budget issues to set a trap to impeach the President, but that they might well regret setting that trap.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda discusses the problems with eyewitness identification, as illustrated recently by the tragedy in Ferguson, Missouri.

Former counsel to the president John W. Dean discusses the recent report by the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence describing the CIA’s use of torture to interrogate suspected terrorists. Dean predicts that the report will not likely lead to any prosecutions or policy changes, but instead might only result in the more frequent torture of Americans captured around the world.

Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton reviews 2014 in terms of the developments (both forward and backward) in child protection issues. Hamilton concludes that while there are some good reasons to celebrate 2014, we should not slow down the fight for child protection in 2015.

Guest columnist and Cornell University visiting professor of law Joseph Margulies continues his discussion of the American criminal justice system and describes basic principles upon which we could build superior alternatives to the present system.

Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, Elonis v. United States, in which the Court will consider what constitutes a “true threat.” Specifically, Colb considers whether the First Amendment right of free speech prevents criminalization of threatening speech only if the speaker intended to bring about fear of bodily harm or death, or if it is enough that a reasonable person uttering those words would have anticipated they would be interpreted as such a threat.

Hofstra University law professor describes the recent clarification by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights of its prior guidance on the legality of single-sex classes in public schools. Grossman explains why this clarification was needed and what issues it seeks to address.

U.C. Davis law professor Vikram David Amar continues his discussion on how federalism cuts against the challengers to the Obamacare statute in King v. Burwell. In this second of a two-part series, Amar addresses some counterarguments to his thesis that federalism principles bolster the federal government’s position in that case.

U.C. Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar explains how the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius—upholding Obamacare as a proper exercise of Congress’s tax powers and striking down a significant expansion of Medicaid—weakens the case of subsequent challengers to Obamacare in King v. Burwell.

Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf comments on the scope and limits of prosecutorial discretion, as it relates both to President Obama’s executive action on immigration and the Michael Brown case.

Former counsel to the president John W. Dean critiques the GOP for using extortion tactics to get what they want politically. Dean argues that President Obama should openly and frequently denounce Republicans on their abuses of the confirmation process, or else see his presidency end with a whimper.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda comments on the purportedly random assignment of judges to cases in federal courts. Rotunda points out that particularly in the Ninth Circuit, which has been singled out as having highly unlikely results of “random” assignment, the process of case assignment is unnecessarily opaque; Rotunda argues for greater transparency to ensure fairness and justice.