Verdict

U.C. Davis law professor Vikram David Amar continues his discussion of the California Legislature’s efforts to repeal, by ordinary legislation, provisions of a proposition that have been blocked indefinitely by a federal district court judge. Amar responds to arguments by the State Legislative Counsel that Proposition 187 can be repealed by simple legislation. He contends that the Legislative Counsel overreads the import of a judicial block on enforcement of the proposition and ignores the expressive effects of that law. Amar concludes by proposing that while he agrees that the repeal should go forward, it should follow prescribed procedures and include popular approval.

In this first of a three-part series of columns, former counsel to the president John W. Dean discusses government watch lists in the post-9/11 era—specifically No-Fly Lists. He explains the questionable means by which these No-Fly Lists are created and maintained, and he calls attention to the absence of any way for people erroneously listed to seek any legal recourse.

University of Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry discusses the growing personal use of unmanned aerial vehicles (colloquially known as drones) by individuals for spying and other nefarious reasons. She points out that most attention toward drones has focused on their use by the government, but their use by private citizens is increasingly becoming a concern. She discusses existing laws that might cover their use and proposes other ways the law can protect our privacy from individuals with high tech equipment like drones.

Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb describes some of the differences between mediation and litigation and how the former might be a better method for resolving human conflict. Colb first looks at the opening statement that mediators give to the parties in mediation, which she argues reveals a fundamental strength of the approach.

Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman and Stanford University law professor Lawrence Friedman discuss the erosion of “heartbalm” laws—legal claims against the extramarital lover of one’s spouse—in North Carolina and West Virginia. Grossman and Friedman describe the history of these causes of action and their decline over time. They explain the reasoning behind two different courts’ rulings—a lower court in North Carolina and the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia—independently striking down their respective state’s remaining heartbalm actions.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda argues that the best way to increase revenue is to lower taxes. Rotunda explains that the current taxation structure incentivizes the wealthy to find loopholes and avoid paying taxes altogether, whereas those same corporations and individuals would be more likely to pay under lower tax rates. Rotunda also discusses the trend of corporations moving their headquarters and business centers from states with higher taxes, such as California, to states with lower taxes, and the negative impact of such moves on the origin state.

U.C. Davis law professor Vikram David Amar discusses efforts by California lawmakers to repeal provisions of the state code that a federal judge invalidated many years ago. Amar explains why those efforts, though understandable, reflect fundamental understandings of the scope of the legislature’s authority and the essence of judicial review.

Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman comments on a recent divorce case in which a New York judge declared invalid a symbolic wedding in a Mexico resort. Grossman describes the facts of that case and the various complex issues the court considered in determining whether the couple was married under New York law.

Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf suggests how secular liberals might constructively communicate with religious conservatives. Dorf notes that respectful engagement with others whose religious views differ from one’s own tends to lead to more productive conversations than do humiliation or ridicule.

Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton comments on a recently filed religious discrimination lawsuit the EEOC brought on behalf of several employees against two companies, United Health Programs of America, Inc. and Cost Containment Group, Inc. In that case, the two defendant companies are allegedly imposing their “Onionhead” practices on their employees and discriminating against those employees who object to those practices. Hamilton argues that the case illustrates what is at stake in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, in which the Court is expected to resolve crucial questions about the scope of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and its relationship to civil rights acts.

Former counsel to the president John W. Dean comments on the recent surprise defeat of House GOP Leader Eric Cantor in his reelection bid for his Virginia congressional seat. Despite some preliminary claims that the election signifies a resurgence of Tea Party activism, Dean suggests taking a hard look at Cantor’s defeat to better and fully understand why he lost. Other factors such as Democrats’ cross-over voting, Dean argues, could have played a role in Cantor’s defeat.

Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton responds critically to a column by George Will recently published in the Washington Post in which Will belittled a Swarthmore rape victim and implied that college women are responsible for their rapes. Hamilton provides three examples of how society’s handling rape is improving and argues that Will and others should educate themselves about rape before writing columns that ignore facts.

In this second of a two-part series of columns on income mobility, George Washington law professor and economist Neil Buchanan explains why we should focus on reducing economic inequality today. Buchanan warns that our focus should not be on the increased rate at which economic inequality is growing, but on its very existence. He argues that even if inequality were gradually abating on its own, as some have postulated, inactively waiting for it to do so would continue to allow millions of people to suffer the pain of poverty until that distant and hypothetical time arrives.

Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb comments on a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court invalidating Florida’s approach to identifying criminal convicts who are intellectually disabled and therefore constitutionally ineligible for the death penalty. Colb describes the facts and issues that brought the case before the Court and infers from the opinion that the Court may have a growing consciousness about those sentenced to death. Acknowledging also the strong arguments presented by the dissent, Colb concludes that essential difference between the majority and the dissent is a disagreement as to what is worse: to execute the wrong person to spare the wrong person from execution.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda critically discusses attempts to amend the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Rotunda describes some of the alarming implications of the proposal in the Senate, which already has 41 cosponsors, and he warns that the passage of the proposal will lead to the taking away of important rights the First Amendment granted.

U.C. Davis law professor Vikram David Amar discusses how three cases on the U.S. Supreme Court’s docket for the 2014-2015 Term illustrate the nuanced principles behind the Court’s selection of cases for review. Amar describes each case and explains why the Supreme Court likely chose it for review.

George Washington University law professor and economist Neil Buchanan critiques the argument that income mobility adequately addresses the issue of economic inequality. Buchanan contends that supporters of the mobility argument rely on a theory of mobility that disregards the reality of the permanent effects that poverty has on people. In a companion column next week, Buchanan will discuss where the arguments that Professor Piketty offered in his book Capital in the Twenty-First Century fit into the arguments over inequality, mobility, and redistribution.

Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bond v. United States, handed down earlier this week. In that case, the Court considered whether the federal Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act applies to a Pennsylvania woman’s attempted use of mild toxins to cause a skin rash on a romantic rival. Dorf argues that the Court’s ruling sidesteps an important question about the scope of congressional power to implement treaties but that it also announces a presumption of statutory construction that could have far-reaching implications.

Guest columnist and Touro Law Center professor Rodger Citron comments on the litigation in New York over a rule prohibiting food-service establishments from serving sugary drinks in sizes larger than sixteen ounces. Citron describes the arguments put forth by each side and explains why the critical issue is whether the Board of Health's has the authority to promulgate such a rule.

Guest columnist and University of South Carolina law professor Seth Stoughton comments on the shifting marijuana laws throughout the United States and the implications for Fourth Amendment doctrine. Stoughton explains how marijuana laws in the United States have changed over time describes the resulting doctrinal uncertainty. He focuses specifically on the Fourth Amendment’s “automobile exception” in cases involving marijuana calls for legislatures and judges to clarify how police practices should be updated.