George Washington University law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why it is in the best interests of Republican leaders for them to admit that Hillary Clinton would be a tolerable president, rather than to support Donald Trump. Buchanan argues that for them to continue to support Trump is to risk putting a dangerous loose cannon in the White House, who at best will render the Republican party unrecognizable, and at worst could tear apart the country.

Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the procedural issues the U.S. Supreme Court recently addressed in the Texas abortion case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. Dorf explains why the majority’s reasoning on the procedural issues is reasonable (and in his view, correct), notwithstanding the criticism by the dissent.

Cornell University law professor Sherry F. Colb discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Utah v. Strieff, holding that evidence found in that case as a result of a Fourth Amendment violation was not the direct consequence of the violation and was therefore properly admitted into evidence against the defendant under the attenuation doctrine. Colb explains how one throwaway line in the opinion, if taken to its logical conclusion, could potentially spell the death of the exclusionary rule.

Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies explains why a criminal conviction of police officers is neither a necessary nor sufficient component of justice. In fact, Margulies argues that those who would dismantle the carceral state should not be the first to invoke it by seeking convictions as the sole means of justice.

John W. Dean, former counsel to President Nixon, continues his discussion of the federal lawsuit against Trump University. As Dean points out, Trump’s attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel drew public attention to this lawsuit and may further harm his presidential bid if his confidential and video depositions are released, which Dean argues is likely.

Cardozo law professor Marci A. Hamilton describes a relatively new phenomenon of religious leaders coming together to criticize bad acts—even bad acts perpetrated by people who purport to be religious themselves. Hamilton explains how for too long, religious actors seemed beyond reproach no matter what they did, simply by nature of being religious. She expresses great relief that such a period seems to be passing, as evidenced by the widespread support for the LGBTQ community in response to the recent shooting at the Orlando gay club Pulse.

Cornell University law professor Sherry F. Colb considers the changing meaning of the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Miller v. Alabama, which held that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole. Colb discusses specifically the Court’s decision earlier this year in Montgomery v. Lousiana, which held that Miller must be applied retroactively on state collateral review.

Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman praises Gillian Thomas’s new book Because of Sex: One Law, Ten Cases, and Fifty Years That Changed American Women’s Lives at Work, which profiles ten of the most important Supreme Court cases to the advancement of women’s equality in the workplace.

Chapman University professor Ronald Rotunda comments on the increasingly controversial positions taken by the American Law Institute (ALI), which is one of the most important nongovernmental legal institutions in the United States. Rotunda describes some of the changes in laws proposed in recent editions of the ALI’s highly influential Model Codes and Restatements.

Dean and law professor at Illinois Law, Vikram David Amar discusses Donald Trump's public criticism of Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is currently presiding over the federal fraud lawsuit against Trump University. Amar weighs Trump's arguments as to Judge Curiel's purported bias toward him against what is known about Trump's own tendency to personalize disagreements without cause. Amar argues further that while some opinions are in fact formed as a result of one's ethnicity and experiences as a racial minority, this does not apply in the present instance for a number of reasons, each of which Amar explores in today's column.

Neil H. Buchanan, a law professor and economist at George Washington University, discusses the negative opinions a large number of Americans hold about both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the lead-up to the 2016 Presidential Election. He further explains how peoples' discontent with Clinton differs from that relating to Trump, revealing a stark disparity between the two candidates' qualifications to become President. Where Clinton's naysayers frequently offer vague or unsubstantiated complaints, Buchanan argues that the criticism aimed at Trump is far more substantive.

Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf evaluates statements made by Donald Trump in response to the mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando this past weekend. Dorf argues that by telling American Muslims that they are all presumed to be terrorists, Trump actually fosters resentment and radicalization in the small portion of the American Muslim community that has the potential for radicalization.

George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why, whether Donald Trump wins or loses the presidency, constitutional democracy in the United States is seriously threatened. Buchanan argues that Trump’s stated plans for the country would effectively destroy our constitutional democracy, but even a Republican-caused gridlocked Congress under a President Hillary Clinton could cause a debt crisis and economic collapse.

Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies explains how two front-end criminal justice reforms—demanding moral consistency in policing and taking addiction seriously—would significantly shrink the carceral state and make it more just.

John W. Dean, former counsel to President Nixon, takes a close look at Republican presumptive presidential nominee Donald Trump and his attacks on Judge Curiel. Dean scrutinizes the lawsuits involving Trump University and points out that the alleged behavior, if true, could criminally implicate Trump and Trump University.

Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton explains what is really behind a Catholic bishop’s letter urging Catholics to oppose Pennsylvania HB 1947—a significant bill that would reform statutes of limitations for victims of child abuse and incest thereby giving them greater access to justice.

Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses a recent unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that illustrates the lasting impact Justice Scalia had on the Court’s approach to statutory interpretation. Dorf describes the shift from purposivism to textually constrained purposivism over the past half century, and explains how they differ from the textualism Justice Scalia espoused.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda describes some significant changes in the law that could result from the next Supreme Court justice being appointed by a Democratic president. Rotunda looks at a number of seminal cases that were decided 5-4 that seem likely be overturned in such an event.

Dean and law professor at Illinois Law, Vikram David Amar describes some of the takeaway points from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions on legislative districting, particularly that in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. Amar points out that the unexpected death of Justice Scalia in the middle of the term affects at least the reasoning—and perhaps the outcome—of this and many other cases.

In this first of a two-part series of columns, George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan considers whether the constitutional democracy in the United States is near its demise. Buchanan compares and contrasts the responses to issues faced by middle-class America given by Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton with those given by Republican nominee apparent Donald Trump.