Verdict

Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton and guest columnist and child traumatology specialist Steven Berkowitz, M.D., describe the several ways in which Catholic bishops have prevent sex abuse victims from seeking justice for their abusers. Hamilton and Berkowitz argue that justice demands that legislators revive expired civil statutes of limitations and, going forward, eliminate the criminal and civil statutes of limitation for child sex abuse.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda comments on the practice of judges requiring lawyers to donate to charities. Rotunda argues that this practice violates the code of judicial conduct for federal judges.

Vikram David Amar, law professor and dean at Illinois Law, and Michael Schaps, a California civil litigation attorney, critique a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considering whether and when a government physician can take into account a patient’s race. Amar and Schaps argue that the court’s analysis is internally consistent and legally flawed, as well.

George Washington University law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that Social Security will still be there when today’s youth retire, despite claims to the contrary by Republicans and the media. Buchanan explains the key difference between the Social Security trust fund and the Social Security system generally.

Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the American public's enduring fascination with Donald Trump, and explains how the social science of boredom may be at play in it. Dorf highlights studies that explain this phenomenon from distinct angles, and applies the findings to the general voting populace as a means of explaining why people just cannot seem to get enough of Trump, regardless of whether they agree with his politics.

In this first of a two-part series of columns, Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies begins to explain why criminal justice reform is happening. Margulies articulates three propositions toward which it is moving: (1) vulnerable populations should not be treated like “ordinary criminals”; (2) offenders deserve an opportunity to redeem themselves; and (3) the police should be monitored, but not closely regulated.

Former counsel to the president John W. Dean discusses the defamation action brought by Boston College public affairs director Jack Dunn over his portrayal in the Academy Award winning film “Spotlight.” Dean expresses surprise that the Academy would award the honor of Best Picture to a film that twisted facts for dramatic gain at the expense of at least one person’s reputation and suggests that the Academy should consult fact checkers as part of its film evaluation process.

Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman comments on a recent per curiam opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court in which it instructed the Alabama Supreme Court to obey the U.S. Constitution and give full effect to a lesbian couple’s adoption decree from Georgia. Grossman describes the facts leading up to the case and explains why the High Court ruled firmly as it did, and why the Alabama court was incorrect.

Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb examines the boundaries of moral permission to be the object of someone’s fantasies. Colb considers several different situations that are similar but likely elicit various degrees of responses from readers before concluding that fantasy should be the private prerogative of the fantasizer that should not be subject to either legal or moral regulation.

Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton describes two recent events that indicate that the United States remains dedicated to a culture of freedom and tolerance, rather than moving toward theocracy. As Hamilton explains, the federal government has taken action against the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for establishing a theocracy on the border of Utah and Arizona, and also for money laundering and food stamp fraud.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda calls attention to the increasing problem of false claims of hate crimes—whether based on race or sexual orientation—and suggests that rather than embrace a mob mentality, we neither jump to conclusions of guilt nor accuse claimants of lying.

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar examines California’s Proposition 49—which seeks the voters’ approval for the California legislature to ratify an amendment to the federal Constitution to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC—in order to shine light on what might be required to overturn the decision on a federal level. Amar argues that Proposition 49 highlights just how difficult it would be to craft a workable constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

In light of Donald Trump’s recent comments about his anatomical endowment, Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the role of virility—and perceived virility—among prior American presidents and other world leaders of history. Dorf points out that while some studies suggest popular perception of one male candidate as “more manly” than another might give him an edge up, analysis shows that result cannot necessarily be extrapolated to predict male versus female elections.

Guest columnists Igor De Lazari, Antonio Sepulveda, and Henrique Rangel comment on a recent ruling by the Brazilian Supreme Court that criminal sentences may be enforced after a challengeable appellate court decision—a ruling the authors argue departs from the clear meaning of article 5, section LVII of the Brazilian Constitution. De Lazari, Sepulveda, and Rangel suggest that the ruling was based on strategic motivations by the justices, rather than purely on interpretations of the law.

Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies comments on the current plight of the Republican party and the role of Donald Trump in that trajectory. Margulies focuses on the delusions that bedevil the GOP and points to the symbols in which the party refuses to believe and on which it simultaneously depends.

Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton discusses the recently released report on abuse in the Altoona-Johnstown Catholic Diocese in Pennsylvania. Hamilton argues that with the motion picture Spotlight having received the Oscar for Best Motion Picture, legislators in Pennsylvania and elsewhere should have even greater motivation to reform civil and criminal statutes of limitations with respect to victims of child sex abuse.

Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb considers the perspectives of both sides of the controversy over a relatively new California law requiring licensed pregnancy centers to prominently post a notice about the availability of free or low-cost abortion, contraception, and prenatal care. Colb offers a compelling narrative to illustrate each perspective, ultimately concluding that while she personally agrees with one side neither is “right” in a moral sense.

Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman comments on a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in which the court affirmed a jury verdict in favor of a sexual harassment plaintiff. Grossman describes the facts leading up to the case and explains why the jury and the appellate court came to the correct conclusion as a matter of fact and law.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda describes how freedom—specifically freedom of speech—was recognized as important as far back as ancient Athens, and how it remains important in the United States today, not only for its inherent value but also in setting an example for the rest of the world to use. Rotunda argues that when the United States restricts speech, other countries will use our example to justify their own repression.

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar describes some of the risks Senate Republicans will face if they refuse to process any Supreme Court nominee that President Obama sends them, as they have claimed they would. Among these risks, Amar argues, are the possibility that a President Hillary Clinton might appoint Obama to the Supreme Court, that the Democrats could take over the Senate and approve a nominee that a Republican-controlled Senate would not have approved, or even that Justices Breyer and Ginsburg could retire under a Democrat-controlled Senate, giving President Obama three places on the Court to fill with liberal justices.