Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf comments on recent protests against administrators on various campuses across the United States. Dorf argues that the protests reflect the failure of campus administrators, faculty, and students to follow through on promoting diversity beyond the admissions process.

Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses New York’s enactment of the Women’s Equality Agenda, which nearly coincides with the 200th birthday of women’s rights champion Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Grossman describes the history behind the Women’s Equality Act as well as the provisions it codifies.

Vikram David Amar, law professor and dean at Illinois Law, and Michael Schaps, a California civil litigation attorney, discuss Spokeo v. Robins, in which the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the nature of injury required for a plaintiff to avail herself of the federal court system. Specifically, Amar and Schaps describe the justices’ various perspectives on the issue and the possible origins and significance of these perspectives.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda the lead-up and history of the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision—in which the Court in 1857 held that African Americans could not be American citizens and therefore could not sue in federal court. Rotunda explains how the case progressed through the state and subsequently federal courts, and discusses how the decision affected some of the justices sitting on the Court at the time.

Vikram David Amar, dean and law professor at the University of Illinois College of Law, and Alan Brownstein, professor at UC Davis School of Law, examine a court challenge brought against a recently enacted California law regulating family planning clinics. Amar and Brownstein argue that the law should survive these constitutional challenges.

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.