Verdict

George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan revisits Donald Trump’s proposed economic policies in his latest column. Buchanan summarizes these policies and explains why they are counterintuitive to the reality of today’s improving U.S. economy. Trump merely repeats the same talking points and claims the economy will continue to falter without the benefit of his leadership, despite all evidence to the contrary. This, Buchanan notes, offers Hillary Clinton the opportunity to present a positive counter-view and gain much-needed momentum leading up to the election.

Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf explains what can be deduced about the Supreme Court's future, even before the 2016 US presidential election. Dorf references the role that the Court plays in American public life while also offering notable examples of areas where the Court has little to no say. Additionally, Dorf reminds readers that many more cases are decided unanimously than by a single vote and that it is difficult to predict future ideological divisions among justices, regardless of whether they were nominated by a Republican or Democratic president.

George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explores US presidential candidate Donald Trump’s frequently changing economic policy announcements. Buchanan highlights why Trump’s proposed policies are difficult to assess by noting that most lack sufficient detail to predict how they might work in practice. Buchanan also evaluates Trump’s statements, to the extent possible, compares them to Hillary Clinton’s positions on the same issues, and explains where Trump’s would ultimately fall short, should he win this November.

Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies breaks down the 'rising tide' strategy of criminal justice and explains why this framework is ultimately misguided in the case of drug policy. Margulies explains that neither the class of drug nor the demographic of drug user is created equal within our criminal justice system due to a variety of factors that he explores in this column.

Marci Hamilton, a Fox Distinguished Scholar in the Program for Research on Religion at the University of Pennsylvania, discusses the continued endangering of children in the United States, specifically in the realm of politics. She suggests a simple solution after illustrating recent examples of this troubling trend: voters must choose political candidates who protect children via their stances on relevant laws and other related political matters.

Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses a recent decision by New York’s highest court expanding the definition of parental status to include same-sex partners intending to parent. Colb explains the court’s ruling and discusses a U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding the rights of non-parents that might stand in the New York court’s way.

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments on a recent decision by the New Hampshire Supreme Court in which it held that a man’s adultery after separating from his wife barred him from seeking a divorce on the grounds on her prior adultery. Grossman provides the historical background of fault and no-fault divorces and explains why the court reached this correct, albeit strange, conclusion.

Chapman University, Fowler School of Law, professor Ronald Rotunda addresses a response to his earlier column on mandatory pro bono for lawyers. Rotunda argues that mandatory pro bono for lawyers would be a unique and unwarranted burden, given that the law grants exclusive privileges to other professions, such as dentists to practice dentistry, without requiring them to provide their services to the indigent for free.

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar and U.C. Davis Law professor Courtney Joslin discuss a recent decision by a federal district court in Texas issuing a nationwide order regarding bathroom access for transgender students. Amar and Joslin explain why the order almost certainly oversteps that court’s authority without providing any reasons or analysis to justify its overbroad relief.

George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why young Americans and black Americans should not believe Trump’s (and Republicans’) claims that they have nothing to lose by dismantling Social Security and Medicare. Buchanan describes the so-called reduced benefits scenario that could happen in the unlikely event that the trust balance reaches zero and contrasts that with the enhanced benefits that could result from a Clinton presidency.

Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the widely accepted phenomenon in United States elections known as the “pivot,” whereby candidates in both parties change positions between the primary and general elections to appeal to the voters in those particular elections. Dorf explains why candidates commonly pivot, and why general acceptance of this practice should be troubling.

Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies responds to two of the most common criticisms of the trial and sentencing of former Stanford undergrad Brock Turner, who was convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman. Margulies explains why a change to California law imposing a mandatory minimum sentence for this crime actually does not address these criticisms, and in fact exacerbates one of them.

Former counsel to President Nixon, John W. Dean argues that comparisons between former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton are inapt. Dean points out several ways in which Hillary’s behavior did not rise even to the level of that of McDonnell, and the U.S. Supreme Court found that even the latter did not support conviction.

Marci Hamilton, a Fox Distinguished Scholar in the Program for Research on Religion at the University of Pennsylvania, denounces the involvement of the federal government in local land use issues through the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Hamilton argues that RLUIPA incorrectly treats neutral, generally applicable land use decisions identically with discriminatory land use decisions.

Attorney and editor at Justia, Sarah Andropoulos comments on a recent decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit criticizing but affirming courts’ exclusion of sexual orientation discrimination from protection under Title VII. As Andropoulos explains, the panel’s reasoning is somewhat convoluted, and its conclusion does not seem to follow from its logic.

Cornell University law professor Sherry F. Colb considers whether the termination of Zika pregnancies might affect our thinking about abortion. Specifically, Colb asks (1) whether it is right to end a pregnancy because the baby would be severely disabled if brought to term, and (2) whether it is right at all to take the life of a fetus late in pregnancy, given that birth defects caused by Zika are not detectable by ultrasound until late in pregnancy.

SMU Dedman School of Law Professor Joanna Grossman comments on a recent decision by the Illinois Supreme Court reaffirming a decades-old decision by the same court that seemed obsolete even at the time. Grossman argues that the recent decision unfairly withholds protections from nonmarital families and does not actually serve the purported public policy purpose of favoring marriage.

Chapman University, Fowler School of Law, professor Ronald D. Rotunda comments on the American Bar Association’s assertion of copyright to its Model Rules of Professional Conduct and argues that the association should review its consent decree. As Rotunda argues, the ABA’s fees are at best arbitrary and should not determine (as they presently do) the fees required for reprinting the Model Rules.

George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan comments on Donald Trump’s inclusion of Brexit provocateur Nigel Farage as a speaker at a rally in Mississippi. Buchanan argues that the presence of such an openly anti-immigrant, whites-first agitator alongside Trump can mean only one thing about Trump’s own campaign for president.

Guest columnist Joseph A. Sullivan, special counsel and director of pro bono programs at Pepper Hamilton LLP, responds to Verdict columnist Ronald Rotunda with respect to his opinion on mandatory pro bono for lawyers. Sullivan argues that even if such a requirement to practice law is akin to a tax, as Rotunda posits, it is a just tax, exchanged for the privilege of lawyers to practice law to the exclusion of non-lawyers.