Marci Hamilton, a law professor at Cardozo School of Law, offers a strong critique of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, in which the Court held that owners of closely held corporations may deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives on the basis of the owners’ own religious beliefs. Hamilton explains why the Court’s interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is problematic and calls for that legislation to be repealed as soon as possible.

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.

Cardozo Law School professor Marci Hamilton argues for the importance of academic freedom but distinguishes it from immunity from debate in the marketplace of ideas. She comments on a recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request targeting University of Virginia School of Law professor Douglas Laycock for allegedly using university resources for anti-LGBT ends. Hamilton calls the formal FOIA request unnecessary but the intent to question how his public positions on various issues play out in the real world. Hamilton describes a number of positions Laycock has taken publicly that support the view that he is an advocate for extreme religious forces.

Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses how the lower courts’ consistent rulings in favor of same-sex marriage might influence a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Dorf observes that every single judge to rule on the question has relied on the Court’s 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor for the conclusion that SSM bans are unconstitutional. He concludes that while the lower courts’ decisions have no binding effect on the Supreme Court, they might serve as a legal barometer of what is legally plausible and as conduits of public opinion.

Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman reflects on the progress of same-sex marriage in the United States over the past decade. She notes that on May 17, 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Grossman describes how the movement gained momentum and how the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor contributed substantially to that rapid change. She observes that as of now, 19 states and the District of Columbia permit same-sex marriage, and that number is only going to increase.

Justia columnist and U.C. Davis law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action upholding the Michigan state constitutional ban on race-based affirmative action. Amar explains how the Court’s 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger—widely regarded as a victory for proponents of affirmative action programs—paradoxically contributed to the outcome in Schuette. Amar concludes that while diversity is a worthwhile rationale for race-based admissions programs, minority students would be better served if that rationale supplemented, rather than a replaced, the original remedial purpose of such programs.

Justia columnist and Chapman law professor Ronald Rotunda explains why the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is implicated by the forced resignation of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for his donation to a committee that supported California Proposition 8, the California initiative that banned gay marriages in that state. He critiques the state law requiring disclosure on the grounds that it facilitates harassment of donors who wish simply to exercise their constitutional rights.

Justia columnist and Cornell law professor Michael Dorf discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision this week in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. He provides a brief history of Supreme Court jurisprudence on race and contrasts that history with yesterday’s fractured opinions, which consist of a plurality opinion, three concurrences, and a dissent (with Justice Kagan recused). Dorf explains that while the decision has relatively low doctrinal stakes, the case exposes three important fault lines running through the Roberts Court.

Justia columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman comments on a charge of discrimination filed against the City of New York for an allegedly unlawful testing accommodation policy. Grossman describes the facts alleged in the charge: an NYPD police officer was denied the opportunity to reschedule a sergeant’s exam despite that she was scheduled to give birth on the same day as the exam. Grossman then discusses the applicable laws, and she argues that the discriminatory policy is a manifestation of the erroneous mindset that pregnancy is a condition not worthy of even minor accommodation.

Justia columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman tells the story of a boy in Indiana who sued for, and won, the right from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for male athletes to wear their hair long during the athletic season, or at least for the right for boys not to be forced to cut their hair while female athletes are allowed to wear theirs long. Grossman discusses the ruling and why, although it corrects some of the missteps made by other federal courts in grooming-code cases, it does not go far enough to eliminate the gross stereotyping implicit in many sex-specific appearance codes.

Justia columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman notes that first Utah, then Oklahoma, then Kentucky, and now Texas have seen at least some aspects of their anti-same-sex marriage rules invalidated by federal courts. Red states are unlikely to shift as quickly as blue states, Grossman notes, but change on this issue is inevitable, and only in one direction. She also notes the irony of Justice Scalia's words being used against him.

Justia columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman comments on the status of same-sex marriage in Kentucky. There, a federal court’s ruling in Bourke v. Beshear concluded that whether or not a state has the power to refuse to authorize same-sex marriages on its own turf, it does not have the constitutional power to refuse to recognize those that are validly celebrated elsewhere. Grossman notes that Bourke joins a growing number of cases in which recognition issues are at the forefront, a trend that was ignited by the Supreme Court’s ruling last year in United States v. Windsor, which found fault in the federal government’s decision to single out same-sex marriages for non-recognition.

Justia columnist and attorney David Kemp discusses the tragic situation of Jahi McMath, the 13-year-old girl who was pronounced brain dead after surgery, and whose family sought to keep her on a ventilator despite that diagnosis. Kemp focuses on the federal civil rights lawsuit recently filed by the family. He argues that it is unlikely to succeed on the merits and that the family would be better advised to seek alternative means of answers and justice for their loss.

Justia columnist and attorney David Kemp discusses a recent ruling by a federal judge in Ohio striking down that state’s laws banning recognition of same-sex marriages validly performed in other states. Kemp describes the facts and legal reasoning of that case and explains how the ruling affects residents of Ohio and its potential implications outside that state. He predicts that although the scope of the ruling is quite narrow—affecting only death certificates for Ohio residents with same-sex surviving spouses—it strongly suggests an imminent change in that state and elsewhere in the country.

Justia columnist and Cornell law professor Michael Dorf comments on the legal and other aspects of the incidents by which Miami Dolphins offensive lineman Richie Incognito bullied and racially harassed his teammate Jonathan Martin, to the point that Martin left the team. Dorf also notes that, interestingly, several U.S. Supreme Court cases are relevant to the controversy regarding Incognito’s behavior.

Justia columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman chronicles Hawaii’s role in the same-sex marriage controversy—including its being the site of the beginning of the modern battle over same-sex marriage, although back then, Hawaii did not itself legalize same-sex marriage. But as Grossman notes, 20 years later, Hawaii now finally has legalized same-sex marriage, thus closing the circle. She also explains why Hawaii’s action should never have had the impact it did, given the proper interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Justia columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman comments on the U.S. Senate’s passage of the Employment Discrimination Act (ENDA) of 2013, which would prohibit employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Although the measure is not predicted to survive the House, Grossman contends that its passage in the Senate is noteworthy and encouraging.

Justia columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman discusses the recent developments in New Jersey culminating in today’s first same-sex marriages performed in that state. She describes the relatively complex journey to marriage equality in that state and explains how the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last term in United States v. Windsor led to the New Jersey Supreme Court refusing to delay enforcement of a lower court’s ruling striking down the ban on same-sex marriage.

Justia columnist and attorney David Kemp discusses a case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on the first day of its 2013-2014 Term. That case, Madigan v. Levin, raises the question whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) precludes age discrimination claims brought directly under the Equal Protection Clause. Kemp notes that the particular facts of the case and the tone of arguments at the Supreme Court suggest that the Court may not decide the case on the merits. However, he argues that the case does present important questions on the power of Congress to abrogate individuals’ right to sue for constitutional violations, and its duty to do so only when the statutory remedies are both adequate and broadly accessible.

Justia columnist and attorney David Kemp describes two recent lawsuits filed in Virginia challenging that state’s laws prohibiting same-sex marriages. Kemp describes the two cases, explains why Virginia is a favorable venue for such legal challenges, and notes the prevalence of other similar cases around the country. Kemp concludes that the existence of so many cases challenging discriminatory laws must be seen as a step in the right direction for same-sex marriage advocates.