Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman and Stanford University law professor Lawrence Friedman comment on a recent legal challenge—based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision in Obergefell v. Hodges—to state anti-polygamy laws.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda calls for the end of the Export-Import Bank. Rotunda describes the Bank as a symbol of corporate welfare and government waste and highlights some of the ways in which the Bank is a drain on the American economy.

Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in City of Los Angeles v. Patel, in which the Court held facially unconstitutional a statute requiring hotel operators to record, keep, and disclose upon demand by law enforcement certain information about their guests. Colb argues that the Court’s reliance on Planned Parenthood v. Casey to find the statute unconstitutional reinforces the link between substantive and procedural privacy.

University of Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry discusses a new type of mobile app that maps illness in much the same way other apps map weather patterns and warns of the privacy implications these apps pose.

UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., in which the Court held that Texas could, consistent with the First Amendment, reject a specialty license plate design application due to its prominent use of the Confederate battle flag. Amar argues that the Court’s reasoning might lead to problems in future disputes and offers a different rationale for reaching the same result that would have avoided such problems.

Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses three possible methods that some states might use to resist implementing the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent same-sex marriage ruling.

Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton discusses and contrasts the constitutional requirements—and limitations—on clergy and government officials.

Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman comments on today’s landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court holding that the federal Constitution does not allow any state to prohibit the celebration or recognition of marriages by same-sex couples.

Attorney and writer David Kemp describes today's landmark holding by the U.S. Supreme Court granting marriage equality in all fifty states. Kemp also provides a recap of the past Verdict columns that have documented marriage equality's path to the Supreme Court since United States v. Windsor was decided in June 2013.

Former counsel to the president John W. Dean continues his dialogue with attorney and author Jim Robenalt to discuss Robenalt’s new book, January 1973: Watergate, Roe v. Wade, Vietnam, and the Month That Changed America Forever. In this second of a two-part series of columns, Robenalt focuses on new information he discovered relating to the history Roe v. Wade decision.

Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton comments on a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit holding that RFRA does not immunize religious nonprofits from the requirement under the Affordable Care Act that they notify the government of their beliefs in order to be exempt from paying for their employees’ contraception.

George Washington law professor and economist Neil Buchanan shares some good news about the living standards of recent retirees and argues that this news should serve as a reminder that there is a way to allow large numbers of people to go through their working lives, and then to live modest, comfortable retirements.

With the U.S. Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision looming, Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Texas holding that state officials do not have the right to intervene in a same-sex divorce case in that state.

UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar addresses some initial criticism of discrimination lawsuits filed by Asian groups and individuals against Harvard and the University of North Carolina for alleged unfair treatment in admissions. Without predicting where the litigations will ultimately lead, Amar identifies and debunks three flawed arguments against the lawsuits.

Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, released earlier this week, in Kerry v. Din, in which the Court rejected a claim that a U.S. citizen was entitled to a detailed explanation of why the government would not allow her husband a visa to enter the country.

Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses the potential downsides of the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding earlier this year in Heien v. North Carolina, in which the Court held that a police officer could, consistent with the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures, stop a driver for a behavior that the officer mistakenly but reasonably believes is illegal.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda describes, both directly and by analogy, the ways in which federal, state, and local governments are attempting to weaken religion.

For the fifty-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses the role of Griswold and its influence on constitutional jurisprudence.

UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar describes some important takeaway points from two cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this week—Elonis v. United States and EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch.

Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Taylor v. Barkes, which illustrates the current breadth of the doctrine of qualified immunity.