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.

George Washington law professor and economist Neil Buchanan analyzes the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne, a case dealing with the limitations on states’ tax systems implied by the dormant Commerce Clause.

UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar discusses a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that has received little attention despite its significance—Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar. In that case, a 5-4 majority of the Court upheld a Florida law that forbids candidates running in contested elections for judicial office from personally soliciting campaign contributions. Amar argues that the ruling provides important insights about First Amendment doctrine and also about the membership of the Roberts Court.

Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf describes how the dissenting opinions by Justices Scalia and Thomas in Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne are inconsistent with their prior methodologies for interpreting the Constitution in other contexts.

Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses actual versus perceived cruelty in the administration of capital punishment, as raised recently during oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in Glossip v. Gross.

University of Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry discusses a proposal tentatively approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation that would allow airlines to collect consumers’ personal data for the purpose of personalizing fare quotes. Ramasastry cautions that the proposal has significant privacy and discrimination risks and that we need more information, more transparency, and better safeguards before proceeding with it.

UC Davis law professors Vikram David Amar and Alan Brownstein continue their discussion of state religious freedom restoration acts (RFRAs). Amar and Brownstein discuss the original purpose of state RFRAs, the pros and cons of enacting a general religious liberty statute as opposed to granting accommodations on a case-by-case basis, and the best way for states to move forward in light of these considerations.

Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf considers the intricacies of a question Justice Antonin Scalia posed during last week’s oral argument in the same-sex marriage cases—whether, if the Court finds a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, clergy who will not officiate at same-sex weddings must thereby forfeit the power to officiate at opposite-sex weddings.

Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses a question Justice Samuel Alito asked during oral argument last week in the same-sex marriage cases—whether non-romantic couples should have the right to marry.

Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton assesses the different arguments presented during this week’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the same-sex marriage cases.