Verdict

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda reflects on the life and accomplishments of his friend the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Rotunda responds to some of the criticism that surfaced after Scalia’s death and recounts some of his most memorable opinions.

In honor of the recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton discusses the Court’s decision in Employment Div. v. Smith, in which Justice Scalia wrote for the majority holding that a law is constitutional under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment if it is facially neutral and generally applied. Hamilton lauds the decision as striking the right balance between liberty and harm, and between religious diversity and religious tyranny.

Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit holding that when police are outside the threshold of a home arresting a suspect who is inside the threshold, it is a “home arrest” requiring a warrant. Colb explains why the decision is significant in protecting the home as a space where a person can feel the highest degree of privacy and comfort, free from unreasonable government intrusions.

Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses the effect that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Young v. United Parcel Service has had on cases arising under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), as well as the limitations of that decision. Grossman argues that while the decision helped give effect to the intended purpose of the PDA, it did not and could not expand the scope of the statute, which is what is now needed to adequately protect pregnant workers.

Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies comments on the likely political and legal consequences of the recent passing of Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Margulies predicts that, due to the ongoing presidential campaign, anyone President Obama nominates to fill the vacancy might become both a partisan tool in presidential politics and also a symbol for the future of America.

Vikram David Amar—dean and law professor at the University of Illinois College of Law—comments on a summary reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court of a decision by the Idaho Supreme Court. While Amar agrees with the Court that the Idaho court erred in reaching its decision, but he argues that the Idaho jurists were not guilty of the particular stupidity or defiance the Supreme Court imputed to them.

In this first of a series of columns evaluating presidential candidates’ claims of being moderate, George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that Marco Rubio is extremely conservative on both social and economic issues. Buchanan points to Rubio’s position on such social issues as reproductive rights, same-sex marriage, gun control, and economic issues such as tax policy and the federal budget.

Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf reviews Sidney Tarrow’s new book, War, States, and Contention. Dorf considers how Tarrow’s view of the role of contentious politics applies in the current political campaign and examines the relation between national security and domestic social movements.

Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies reflects on the devastating toll solitary confinement can take on those who are already part of a vulnerable demographic, as witnessed during his time as a criminal defense and human rights attorney. The story Margulies describes offers compelling support for criminal justice reform as it currently exists in the United States.

Illinois Law dean and law professor Vikram David Amar evaluates three people’s statements regarding America’s treatment of Muslims: President Obama, an Iowa businessman, and a local Muslim cleric (an imam). Amar points out that Donald Trump’s proposal that America ban all Muslims from entering the country is vastly underinclusive (because the great majority of violent acts in this country are perpetrated by non-Muslims), and at the same time very overinclusive (because the overwhelming majority of Muslims who want to enter the United States intend no harm)—two indicators of legal and moral unfairness.

Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton comments on the use of religious terms in among the Republican presidential candidates, particularly terms that refer to a specific religio-political world view. Hamilton especially critiques Cruz’s and Rubio’s invocation of Ronald Reagan’s name, pointing out that Reagan tried to bring Americans together in his speeches, even in his references to God.

Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman comments on a recent decision by an appellate court in New York holding that a harsh but voluntary prenuptial agreement could be enforced as written. Grossman points out that the decision is consistent with a larger trend of courts enforcing prenuptial agreements, even when their terms might seem objectively one-sided or unfair.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda reflects on the accomplishments of several attorneys who passed away in 2015. Among the lawyers Rotunda remembers are: Mario Matthew Cuomo, Edward W. Brooke, Vincent Bugliosi, Fred Thompson, Solomon S. Seay, Loredana Nesci, Joe Jamail, Richard S. Ketcham, and Tahir Elci.

Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses the recent trend of anti-abortion groups joining custody battles over frozen embryos on the side of the parent that seeks implantation. Colb argues that this position is consistent with their deeply held view that life begins at conception—much more so than their more usual stance in battles over abortion regulation.

Neil H. Buchanan, a law professor and economist at George Washington University, comments on the recent trend of mainstream liberal opinion makers to express public support for labor unions. Buchanan explains the tumultuous history of liberals and labor unions, and he wonders whether this overdue support is too little too late, in light of a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf considers an issue on which the U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral argument: whether the First Amendment protects a government employee from adverse action based on the government’s mistaken belief that the employee was engaged in speech or association. Dorf highlights the nuances of the case and whether there is a meaningful difference between rule-guided conduct and reason-guided conduct.

George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses a set of issues raised by an op-ed on the public health emergency in Flint, Michigan, written by one of former president George W. Bush’s speechwriters. Buchanan argues that one of the takeaway lessons is that the government—and particularly the federal government—plays an essential role in responding adequately when disaster strikes.

Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies discusses the problem of states executing death row inmates under laws subsequently found to be unconstitutional, as has happened in Texas and in Florida, and likely in many other cases. Margulies laments that the United States continues to experiment with capital punishment when experience demonstrates the procedures for imposing this irreversible sentence are rife with problems.

Former counsel to the president John W. Dean continues his discussion of the controversial investigative report by Al Jazeera Investigates that implicates several elite American athletes of illegal doping. Dean discusses the two lawsuits filed in federal court in the District of Columbia and the possible role an anti-SLAPP statute might play in those lawsuits.

Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton a recent proposal by the Indiana legislature to update that state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) and extend that law’s legal standard to other rights. Hamilton explains why this proposed change is based on an overly simplistic view of constitutional rights and is a bad idea.