Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains the U.S. Supreme Court’s seminal decision in United States v. Nixon and explains how it might affect the Trump administration in light of various ongoing investigations. Amar provides a brief summary of the Court’s holding in that case, calls attention to some weaknesses in its reasoning, and anticipates what issues might present themselves again.

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent summary reversal of the Arkansas Supreme Court’s ruling that upheld that state’s attempt to avoid the marriage equality decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Grossman describes the ways in which some states, such as Arkansas in this case, have tried to avoid, subvert, or limit Obergefell’s holding, and she discusses the Supreme Court’s simple yet clear response, as well as the significance of Justice Gorsuch’s dissent from the per curiam opinion.

Neil H. Buchanan, a George Washington law professor and economist, argues that the tax code status quo (imperfect as it is) is better than the changes Republicans are proposing to make. Buchanan explains the difference between the marginal tax rate and the effective tax rate and how Republicans focus only on marginal tax rates in order to mislead the public.

Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses possible implications and outcomes of the Supreme Court’s recent announcement that it will review the appeals court decisions invalidating President Trump’s travel ban executive order. Dorf explains the issue of mootness and also explains how one might predict how the Court will rule on the merits of the case.

Marci A. Hamilton—a Fox Distinguished Scholar in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, and the CEO and Academic Director of CHILD USA—explains why the New York Senate refuses to take up the issue of the Child Victims Act, which would reform the state’s antiquated child sex abuse statutes of limitations. Hamilton points out that none of the arguments against reform actually hold water and that the real reason lies in the secrets contained in the Secret Archives.

Attorney and Justia editor Sarah Andropoulos comments on some of the ethical considerations raised by the increasingly popular practice of crowdfunding by lawyers. Andropoulos considers whether attorney crowdfunding presents new ethical risks or simply calls for application of established ethics rules to new technology.

John W. Dean, former counsel to President Richard Nixon, describes President Trump’s lifelong history of being in fights—with wives, business partners, vendors, tenants, the news media, and countless others. Dean argues that Trump’s fight tactics include lying, cheating, and seeking to intimidate—skills he likely learned from New York City attorney Roy Cohn.

Marci A. Hamilton, a Fox Distinguished Scholar in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, extols the late Judge Edward Becker as exemplifying the traits of integrity, intelligence, and goodness—traits Hamilton argues that President Trump lacks. Hamilton uses Judge Becker’s example to illustrate the point that not all those in power seek to abuse it.

Cornell University law professor Sherry F. Colb considers the reasoning behind an appeals court's allowing law enforcement to acquire, without a warrant or probable cause, cell phone records that include a user’s approximate location over a period of several months. Colb expresses relief that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to consider the issue so that we can know whether, by using a cell phone, we are thereby exposing our location to the police (and not just to our wireless service providers).

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sessions v. Morales-Santana, in which the Court held unconstitutional a federal law imposing different physical presence requirements on mothers as compared to fathers. Grossman argues that the law at issue epitomized sex discrimination and was rooted in archaic generalizations about parents based on gender.

Chapman University Fowler School of Law professor Ronald D. Rotunda comments on Albert Jeremiah Beveridge’s historic biography of John Marshall and notes that both Beveridge and Marshall are revered in spite of their being wrong (in hindsight) about certain moral truths. Rotunda points out that every generation thinks itself smarter and more moral than the previous generation, so if we do not practice humility about the past, we risk being blindsided by different prejudices today.

George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan once again explains why supply-side economics does not work to stimulate the economy. Buchanan points out the logical mistake of inferring causation from correlation and points to the consensus among economists across the political spectrum that supply-side economics has no basis in fact or theory.

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar laments recent instances of censored speech, particularly on university campuses, and reminds us that freedom of speech and academic freedom protect even those speakers whose message might be perceived odious, racist, sexist, or hateful. Amar points out that both freedom of speech and academic freedom are rooted in the principle that ideas and arguments ought to be evaluated on their substance and that the essence of both kinds of freedom is the opportunity to persuade others of the merits of one's argument, rather than the use of power to coerce or silence others.

Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on the heritability of citizenship and explains why the decision might have implications for other immigration issues, such as the “Muslim ban” executive order. Dorf argues that the precedents the Court had to distinguish to reach its conclusion might give some insight into whether and how it might defer to other political branches on immigration issues.

John W. Dean, former counsel to President Nixon, reflects on the much-anticipated testimony of former FBI Director James Comey before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday. Dean briefly summarizes the takeaways from Comey’s testimony and discusses the response by President Trump and his lawyer.

Marci A. Hamilton, a Fox Distinguished Scholar in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania and CEO of CHILD USA, encourages everyone to watch the Netflix docuseries The Keepers, which addresses child sex abuse in the Catholic Church. Hamilton describes the progress toward justice for child sex abuse victims, including the growing awareness of the pervasiveness the problem and increasing numbers of states who extend or eliminate statutes of limitations for these types of lawsuits and prosecutions.

Cornell University law professor Sherry F. Colb discusses legislation recently approved by the Texas House that will almost certainly be struck down as unconstitutionally restricting women's right to seek an abortion prior to fetal viability. Colb explains that the legislation is more speech than it is law and discusses some possible reasons the state would want to “speak” in this manner.

Chapman University Fowler School of Law professor Ronald D. Rotunda comments on a few aspects of the U.S. federal income tax. Specifically, Rotunda discusses some of the proposals for tax reform and the tax revenue each reform might affect.

Guest columnists Antonio G. Sepulveda, Henrique Rangel, and Igor De Lazari comment on a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that a New York law prohibiting merchants from imposing a surcharge for payment by credit card constitutes a regulation of speech, and they compare the Court’s treatment of the law as regulating speech with Brazil’s historic treatment of similar laws in that country as protecting consumers.

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on a recent significant development in the election reform movement known as the National Popular Vote interstate compact plan. Amar explains the why the NPV would benefit voters in all states and why Oregon’s shift in particular is important.