Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb differentiates state bans on incestuous marriages from bans on same-sex marriages by looking at the governmental interests the bans purportedly serve and the harm done to their targets. Colb argues that the U.S. Supreme Court can, if it wishes, use this distinction to strike down bans on same-sex marriages without also having to rule on bans on incestuous marriages.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman and University of Pittsburg law professor Deborah Brake comment on a recent lawsuit filed by Leigh Castergine against her former employer, the New York Mets, alleging pregnancy discrimination. Grossman and Brake argue that based on Castergine’s allegations, she is likely to prevail in her case; however, they describe the inconsistent results in many seemingly similar pregnancy discrimination cases across the country.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda comments on the IRS monitoring of religious groups. Rotunda argues that the government agency’s actions run counter to the guarantees of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf comments on two recent rulings on state bans on same-sex marriage—one by the U.S. District Court for the District of Louisiana upholding that state’s ban and the other by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit striking down bans in Indiana and Wisconsin. Dorf explains how a comparison of these two rulings reveals weaknesses in the case against marriage equality.
John Dean, former counsel to the president, comments on a recent Newsweek story by David Cay Johnston highlighting the noted and untruthful biographer C. David Heymann. Dean explains how the dysfunctional body of First Amendment law has allowed Heymann to get away with publishing many lies and false information about a handful of public figures.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton describes how granting accommodations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is a slippery slope. Hamilton draws upon a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for illustration.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb considers whether a person should have a right to self-representation in criminal proceedings. Colb describes a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on the issue and discusses why such a right might be valuable.
UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar discusses a recent decision by the California Supreme Court temporarily blocking an “advisory” measure from appearing on the ballot. Focusing on the opinion by Justice Goodwin Liu, Amar describes three main weaknesses in the rationale behind disallowing the legislature from placing the advisory question (or any advisory question) on the ballot.
In light of recent events in Ferguson, Missouri, Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf weighs the benefits and costs of equipping police officers with wearable cameras to record encounters with citizens. Dorf concludes that while there are some risks inherent in the practice, it would be a good first step toward reducing the frequency of tragedies resulting from police–citizen confrontations.
John Dean, former counsel to the president, comments on the recent indictment of Texas Governor Rick Perry. Dean cautions against falling for Perry’s and even some Democrats’ quick dismissal of the indictment as politically motivated and lacking sufficient basis. Dean argues that only Perry, not his special prosecutor, may have abused his power.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton discusses an archaic Orthodox Jewish practice that persists despite putting infants at risk of death or permanent injury. Hamilton describes a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit holding that strict scrutiny applies to the New York City regulation requiring that rabbis receive informed consent from an infant’s parents before performing the dangerous ritual. Hamilton explains why, in her view, the Second Circuit erred in reaching that decision, and moreover, why current criminal laws should be used to protect children from being exposed to the risk.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses a recent decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sustaining an as-applied constitutional challenge to a Mississippi law requiring “admitting privileges” for physicians who provide abortions. Colb explains the panel majority’s creative, albeit convincing, reasoning and critically analyzes the dissenting opinion.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda discusses on the lawsuit against President Obama and explains the issue of judicial standing to sue the President for exceeding his constitutional authority. Rotunda points to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Windsor, the case in which the Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, as supporting standing for the new case against the President.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses a recent decision by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign to revoke an offer to Steven G. Salaita of a tenured faculty appointment after Salaita tweeted strong criticism of Israel’s conduct in Gaza. Dorf explains why the University’s decision presents serious issues of academic freedom and free speech, and even contract law.
Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton comments on a recent move by the Satanic Temple seeking exemption from coercive informed consent laws citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. Hamilton describes the Catholic bishops’ apprehension toward the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) when it was being considered over twenty years ago and how quickly they got behind it after it passed. Finally, Hamilton describes how clear it is now that RFRA cuts both ways.
Vikram David Amar, a U.C. Davis law professor, continues his discussion of the significance of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurrence in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.. Amar describes several ways in which Justice Kennedy’s concurrence can be read to limit the breadth of the Court’s holding in that case and suggests that lower courts should pay close attention to his concurring opinion when applying the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in subsequent cases.
George Washington University law professor and economist Neil Buchanan argues against the notion that Social Security will “go broke” before today’s workers retire. Buchanan discusses the origins of the idea—including disinformation campaigns by opponents of Social Security—and explains why the is unfounded, as long as people continue to support the program politically.
Attorney David Kemp discusses the recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit striking down Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage. He compares and contrasts that opinion to an opinion handed down last month by the Tenth Circuit striking down Utah’s equivalent law. Based on the majority and dissenting opinions, Kemp anticipates what might be the key issues if the case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court—an event that seems increasingly likely.
Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton comments on a recent statement by the Wisconsin Insurance Commissioner that purportedly applies the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. to that state’s law. Hamilton critiques the interpretation as misunderstanding the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and calls upon state courts not only to correctly understand the scope of the Hobby Lobby decision, but to reject the Hobby Lobby majority’s reasoning when interpreting their own state’s laws.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., and the nature of the respondents’ claim that IUDs and morning-after pills are abortifacients. Colb analogizes to the distinction between the culpability of direct violence and failure to rescue in order to illustrate that the respondents’ claims are moral rather than factual in basis.
