Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on a case arising from the Trump administration’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census questionnaire—a case the US Supreme Court had on its calendar for oral arguments until late last week, when the federal district judge issued an opinion and enjoined the government from including the question. Despite the original issue presented in the case (a technical one about the scope of discovery) being made moot by the district court opinion, Dorf discusses the remaining and greater issue of how to discern and address illicit government motives.
In this first of a series of columns, Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on a lawsuit filed in federal court in Arizona that challenges the way state officials are handling the vacancy in the US Senate created by Senator John McCain’s death four months ago. Amar explains the basis of the lawsuit and discusses the sparse case law on point that may determine the outcome of the lawsuit.
GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan continues his series of columns considering how much damage the US Supreme Court will inflict after Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement. Drawing upon the nation’s experience with a conservative Court during the Lochner era, Buchanan predicts that one of the most consequential results of Republicans’ theft of a Supreme Court seat could be to seriously undermine one or more of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf considers the legality of President Donald Trump’s firing of US Attorney General Jeff Sessions and designating Matthew Whitaker as Acting Attorney General. Dorf points out that while the Constitution does not expressly address acting officers, Trump’s actions certainly violate the spirit of the law and the Constitution.
Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf debunks President Trump’s claim that he has kept his campaign promise to “protect coverage for patients with pre-existing conditions.” Dorf provides three primary reasons that the claim is dishonest: the administration’s position in a pending lawsuit; the GOP’s proposed alternative, which does not require insurance companies to offer policies that actually cover pre-existing conditions, and the claim that Democratic support of Medicare for All is “radical socialism.”
In this second of a four-part series about a new approach to community well-being, Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies comments on the problem of displacement. Margulies points out that influx of capital is not necessarily bad for community well-being but distinguishes gentrification, which can be good, from displacement, which is harmful to communities.
Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf anticipates the possible next steps in the federal government’s lawsuit against California over the state’s new law mandating net neutrality. Dorf explains why, if conservative scholars and Supreme Court justices succeed in what seems to be their goal of weakening federal regulatory agencies, that could ironically be a boon to net neutrality and to government regulation more broadly.
Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies argues that the current approach to community well-being will not save the American city. Rather, Margulies points out that communities must remove wealth from individual ownership and place it in the shared hands of the community.
Marci A. Hamilton, professor and resident senior fellow in the Program for Research on Religion at the University of Pennsylvania, calls upon Congress to dissolve and reconstitute the United States Olympic Committee and USA Gymnastics due to their inept handling of child sex abuse within those organizations. Hamilton points out that private organizations have boards of directors who shoulder responsibility for correcting actions of their organizations, but Congress must act when the bad actors are within national governmental bodies (NGBs) such as USOC and USA Gymnastics.
Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies explains how the recent anonymous op-ed published in The New York Times underscores the fundamental continuity between the Obama and Trump administrations on issues of national security. As Margulies observes, our approach to national security in the post-9/11 world has achieved hegemonic status, but we should hope that some future president might not share the same hegemonic view of transnational terror and instead may try to set national security on a different course.
Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies describes the ways in which the United States has changed (and remained the same) in its approaches to national security, from President George W. Bush to President Barack Obama to President Donald Trump. Margulies refers to a column he wrote in January 2017 predicting the trajectory of national security under President Trump and points out that many of his predictions have come to pass.
Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains why the norm of not asking a Supreme Court nominee about his specific views about specific cases does not make sense and renders the hearing unhelpful in evaluating him as a potential justice. Amar explains the distinction between promising to rule in a certain way and predicting how one might rule, and he debunks some of the reasons often given for the norm of not asking (or answering) these types of questions during the confirmation hearing.
GW Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why Social Security is so important, and why Republicans’ claim that it is “going to go broke” is so dishonest. Buchanan briefly describes how Social Security was designed and why, because of that design, it is performing exactly as expected and intended when it was set up.
Guest columnist and former US Congressman Brad Miller explains why Congress may not intrude on an open criminal investigation, especially not to help political allies who are likely targets. In support, Miller points not only to traditional democratic norms, but also to unequivocal jurisprudence on the limits of congressional oversight.
Cornell University law professor Joe Margulies comments on the confirmation hearing of Gina Haspel for director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Margulies initially expressed reservations about Haspel, but he explains her strengths and weaknesses and draws the important distinction between someone who is good for the Agency and someone who is good for the country.
Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on Tim Draper’s proposal to divide California into three separate state. Amar describes what the proposal would do and provides three levels of hurdles that will (and Amar argues should) make the proposal a difficult sell, particularly among rational Democrats, who make up the majority of California voters.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies expands upon a prior column in which he argued that all of President Donald Trump’s attacks thus far on Special Counsel Mueller are not actually a threat to the rule of law. Margulies considers two other scenarios: delegating the task of firing the special counsel, which Margulies argues does threaten the rule of law, and pardoning those convicted by the special counsel, which he argues does not.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies explains why we should withhold judgment about President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the CIA, Gina Haspel. Margulies points out that, notwithstanding what we do know about Haspel’s role in facilitating torture at CIA black sites, there is much information we still do not yet know that could inform our assessment of her. He calls upon both the Left and the Right to reduce knee-jerk reactions and instead seek to make careful assessments based on complete information and facts.
Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on a recent sharply divided decision by the US Supreme Court in Patchak v. Zinke, in which Court considered whether a particular piece of legislation actually constitutes a law. Dorf explains why the issue was so difficult and points out some of the flaws in reasoning by both the plurality and the dissent.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies considers the contention that President Trump's frequent tweets criticizing the ongoing investigation by Special Counsel Mueller and others are an assault on the "rule of law." Margulies notes that the prevailing view on this rather nebulous concept seems to be that the law must be allowed to operate without criticism from anyone it targets. Not only is this interpretation overly literal and simplistic, Margulies argues, President Trump’s criticism also does not amount to such an assault. The president’s attempts to interfere with the ongoing investigation, his order for Special Counsel Mueller to be fired, and other actions, on the other hand, come far closer to constituting an (attempted) assault on the rule of law.