Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman and University of Pittsburg law professor Deborah Brake discuss the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Young v. UPS, in which the Court resolved some issues over the scope of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. In a second column, Grossman and Brake will comment on the implications of the ruling on other aspects of employment discrimination law.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda discusses the statutory interpretation question at issue in the U.S. Supreme Court case King v. Burwell, which could resolve the fate of Obamacare.
Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton discusses the danger of state RFRAs, particularly in light of Indiana’s recent passage of such a law. Hamilton cautions that such laws pose a serious threat to society and despite their name, do not “restore” nothing previously in laws.
UC Davis law professors Vikram David Amar and Alan E. Brownstein discuss the so-called “Sodomite Suppression Act”—a recently proposed California initiative. Amar and Brownstein argue that despite the clear illegality and immorality of the proposed initiative, many of the suggestions that the attorney who proposed it be punished or that the initiative process be altered to prevent these types of initiatives are themselves unconstitutional in some cases, and at best ill-advised in other cases.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil Buchanan discusses the debt ceiling law and explains why it must be repealed entirely.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf argues that modern constitutionalism supports economic libertarianism, due not only to judicial decisions but also the very structure of the Constitution. Dorf responds in part to a recent book review by Professor Suzanna Sherry, published in the March issue of the Harvard Law Review, that is highly critical of Professor Richard Epstein’s book The Classical Liberal Constitution.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton discusses the recent unanimous decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit holding that the Milwaukee Archdiocese is subject to the facially neutral bankruptcy laws against fraud during proceedings, despite its claims, based on free exercise arguments, to the contrary.
U.C. Davis law professor Vikram David Amar comments on the recent oral argument in the Arizona Independent Redistricting case before the U.S. Supreme Court. In particular, he points out the lack of attention to the question of standing and Justice Anthony Kennedy’s overly (and erroneously) simplistic view of U.S. history.
George Washington law professor Neil Buchanan contends that Republicans’ use of the debt ceiling against President Obama in an attempt to achieve their policy goals could backfire and lead to an increase in taxes on the rich.
Cornell University professor Michael Dorf discusses last week’s oral arguments in King v. Burwell, the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide the fate of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Dorf contends that there are three distinct arguments through which the government could successfully defend the law if the Court finds the language of the statute unclear.
Cornell University visiting law professor Joseph Margulies discusses the problems that arise when a police force is driven by a push for revenue for the city rather than by public safety needs.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton discusses the recent push by certain organizations to increase their political spending while remaining anonymous.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda discusses the poor success rate of the current solicitor general on recent civil liberties cases that have come before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses the Obama Administration’s options in light of the recent decision by a federal district judge to enjoin implementation of deferred action for several million undocumented immigrants.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton comments on the religious exemption regime in place in Idaho and critiques it for putting children at serious risk of harm.
Sherry Colb, law professor at Cornell University, discusses a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court will decide whether, after completing a routine traffic stop, a police officer may briefly delay the release of the driver to permit a dog to sniff for narcotics.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda argues that in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo murders, we should even more fervently defend the freedom of speech rather than engage in self-censorship.
U.C. Davis law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the current controversy in Alabama over whether state court judges must issue same-sex marriage licenses pursuant to an order to a federal district judge sitting in that state.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton calls upon state legislators to repeal the laws that permit parents to refuse to vaccinate their children to the children’s detriment as well as to the detriment of the public.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses the observed phenomenon of mental health clinicians’ empathy varying with the cause of the patient’s disorder, and compares this occurrence with juror empathy.