Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman describes California’s recently passed Fair Pay Act, which promises to help alleviate the equal pay gap where the federal government has fallen short. Grossman explains the key findings by the California legislature and the new law changes the landscape for female workers in that state.
Vikram David Amar, law professor and dean of the University of Illinois College of Law, identifies four key issues to watch in the Supreme Court’s 2015-2015 Term. As Amar discusses here, these issues center around: (1) public labor unions, (2) affirmative action, (3) abortion rights, and (4) the death penalty.
Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies discusses the inviolable right of human dignity and its essential role as a condition of criminal justice.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton comments on the recent visit by Pope Francis to Philadelphia on the ten-year anniversary of the release of the landmark Grand Jury Report on Sexual Abuse in the Philadelphia Archdiocese. Hamilton argues that now is the time for state legislators to eliminate statutes of limitations for civil sex abuse suits and revive those claims that have expired due to short statutes of limitations.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses a recent decision by a New Jersey appellate court that she argues illustrates a pattern of courts erroneously failing to see the illegal and harmful stereotyping embodied in sex-specific dress codes.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda comments on the first of a wave of litigation sparked by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Rotunda points out that in some cases, lower courts handling these cases have not adequately discussed or distinguished the relevant cases.
University of Illinois law professor and dean Vikram David Amar comments on a recent decision by a federal district court in Arizona addressing a challenge to two parts of Arizona’s SB 1070 statute, which attempts to deal with immigration stresses in that state. Amar argues that the court’s reasoning on both claims was confused and unpersuasive and that the results should have been inverted. That is, Amar suggests that the court should have upheld the equal protection challenge to the “Show Me Your Papers” provision and rejected the First Amendment challenge to the Day Laborer provisions.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses the second GOP presidential debate and the candidates' varied, often concerning, interpretations of the U.S. Constitution.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamliton comments on the quandary of at-risk children in religious groups like the ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities, and cautions against government and political rhetoric that exalts and protects such lifestyles.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda briefly describes the journey of women lawyers in America. Rotunda argues that while the direction has been generally forward, its progress is best described as “two steps forward, one step back.”
Former counsel to the president John W. Dean comments on the recent news that a former aide to Hillary Clinton, Bryan Pagliano, is invoking the Fifth Amendment to avoid a subpoena seeking his testimony before several congressional committees.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf comments on the developing situation regarding Kim Davis—the Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk who refuses to grant same-sex marriage licenses—and argues that, with one possible exception, the courts were right to reject the legal claims put forward by Davis.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman comments on a recent Utah case where an unwed father forfeited his rights to contest the adoption of his child by not filing a paternity action. Grossman points out that this result is the product of balancing interests of unwed fathers against those of the child, mothers seeking to place children for adoption, and adoptive parents.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda discusses relative change in attitudes toward Jews in the United States and elsewhere in the world.
University of Illinois law professor and dean Vikram David Amar describes the problem of race-based peremptory challenges and argues that peremptory challenges be eliminated altogether on the grounds that we should not allow a person to be denied the right to serve on a jury for any reason that would not also suffice as a reason to deny that person the right to vote in an election.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses the apparent conflict between the social norm that women’s breasts should be covered in public and the legal right of women (in most states) to be top-free in public.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses Donald Trump’s call to end birthright citizenship as part of immigration reform. Dorf argues that birthright citizenship implements widely shared and characteristically American values and that curtailing it would be a huge step backwards.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb analyzes a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holding that when a person with a cellphone inadvertently calls a third party, thereby exposing personal communications, the caller retains no reasonable expectation of privacy in the matters disclosed for purposes of the federal Wiretap Act.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses the implications of a recent decision by a federal district court invalidating an Idaho law that criminalizes entering a “agricultural production facility” under false pretenses and also criminalizes creating an audio or video recording of what takes place there without authorization from the owners—known as an Ag-Gag law.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton explains how politicians have intentionally conflated constitutional religious liberty—which comes from the First Amendment of the Constitution—and statutory religious liberty—which originated in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993—for political gain. Hamilton describes the many differences between these two types of religious liberty and calls upon politicians and journalists to disambiguate the term.
