Verdict

University of Illinois Law dean and law professor Vikram David Amar comments on a case in which the Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week. In that case—Manuel v. Joliet—the Court will consider whether an individual’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure continues after an indictment has issued, thereby allowing a malicious prosecution claim based on the Fourth Amendment. Amar argues that the case highlights some unusual features of Supreme Court practice, as well as some important aspects of constitutional law.

Marci Hamilton, a Fox Distinguished Scholar in the Program for Research on Religion at the University of Pennsylvania, comments on the recent announcement by Cardinal Timothy Dolan of an Independent Reconciliation and Compensation Commission intended to help some clergy sex abuse victims in the New York City Archdiocese. Hamilton describes Dolan’s mixed record on justice for sex abuse victims but hails the latest development as a step in the right direction.

George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why, with the information that we currently have, there is no way to determine whether Donald Trump’s tax strategies were legal or illegal. Buchanan argues that regardless of the answer to that question, there are still too many special provisions for people like Trump—particularly with respect to the real estate sector.

Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the proposed policy guidelines the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently released that relate to the logistics of self-driving cars. In this column, Dorf looks ahead to a time when the majority of vehicles on the road will be self-driving and considers the potential consequences of regulating the few manual cars that will remain. While there is an argument to be made that people's choices and personal freedom should outweigh government interference, Dorf explains that the benefits to the larger population's welfare that self-driving cars may one day offer is likely to win out over time.

Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies discusses two primary areas of law he has practiced during his career. Margulies explains how his time as a capital defense and civil rights attorney was a natural extension of his background in criminal defense investigation. Using an evocative example of a condemned individual deemed a threat to U.S. national security, Margulies shines a humanizing light on a demographic usually viewed as anything but by the American public in his argument against capital punishment.

Marci Hamilton, a Fox Distinguished Scholar in the Program for Research on Religion at the University of Pennsylvania, discusses the decreased emphasis on affiliation with organized religion this election cycle. Although this may seem unusual in light of a more dedicated focus on religion in past elections, Hamilton explains that this lack of attention in the 2016 election harkens back to an earlier era of American history when many of our constitutional framers professed a Deist view of religion—and is ultimately a positive development for our country.

Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb comments on a recent decision by the Court of Appeals of Indiana, holding that police violated their suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights by acquiring, without a warrant, the suspect’s cell site information from his cell phone provider. Colb explains the Indiana court’s reasoning and discusses the evolving law regarding people’s privacy expectations in information their cell phones store and transmit.

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman discusses the continuing impact of Troxel v. Granville, a seminal case in family law that addressed third-party visitation rights, particularly those of grandparents. Grossman lays out Troxel’s holding and explains how it relates to family law in a larger context, then analyzes a more recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court family law case with facts that the court held distinguished it from the broader statute addressed in Troxel. This decision, Grossman posits, was correct. The legislature in the Pennsylvania case had overstepped its bounds, to the significant detriment of parental rights.

Chapman University, Fowler School of Law, professor Ronald D. Rotunda evaluates the claims of President Obama and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton about the country’s economic gains over the past eight years and finds that those claims lack support. Rotunda argues that the numbers indicate that the policy of federal government intervention has not worked as well as Clinton and Obama claim.

University of Illinois dean and law professor Vikram David Amar takes an early look at Gary B. v. Snyder, a case recently filed in federal district court that addresses a child’s fundamental right to literacy. Amar explains how the timing may be ideal for a case of this nature, should it ultimately reach the Supreme Court, since the Court seems increasingly willing to recognize new liberties not mentioned in the Constitution, among other compelling reasons.

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.