U.C. Davis law professors Vikram David Amar and Alan Brownstein reflect on the five most significant constitutional developments of 2014.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil Buchanan describes the starkly different political responses to the revelation of wrongdoing by the IRS earlier this year, and the more recent Senate Intelligence Committee’s “torture report.” Buchanan argues that this contrast illustrates how politicians too often overreact to non-news yet refuse to respond to truly horrifying news.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court recently granted review to consider whether Texas may constitutionally deny an application for a custom state-issued license plate with a Confederate battle flag logo.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda discusses the problems with eyewitness identification, as illustrated recently by the tragedy in Ferguson, Missouri.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton reviews 2014 in terms of the developments (both forward and backward) in child protection issues. Hamilton concludes that while there are some good reasons to celebrate 2014, we should not slow down the fight for child protection in 2015.
Guest columnist and Cornell University visiting professor of law Joseph Margulies continues his discussion of the American criminal justice system and describes basic principles upon which we could build superior alternatives to the present system.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, Elonis v. United States, in which the Court will consider what constitutes a “true threat.” Specifically, Colb considers whether the First Amendment right of free speech prevents criminalization of threatening speech only if the speaker intended to bring about fear of bodily harm or death, or if it is enough that a reasonable person uttering those words would have anticipated they would be interpreted as such a threat.
Hofstra University law professor describes the recent clarification by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights of its prior guidance on the legality of single-sex classes in public schools. Grossman explains why this clarification was needed and what issues it seeks to address.
U.C. Davis law professor Vikram David Amar continues his discussion on how federalism cuts against the challengers to the Obamacare statute in King v. Burwell. In this second of a two-part series, Amar addresses some counterarguments to his thesis that federalism principles bolster the federal government’s position in that case.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf comments on the scope and limits of prosecutorial discretion, as it relates both to President Obama’s executive action on immigration and the Michael Brown case.
Former counsel to the president John W. Dean critiques the GOP for using extortion tactics to get what they want politically. Dean argues that President Obama should openly and frequently denounce Republicans on their abuses of the confirmation process, or else see his presidency end with a whimper.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses some of the issues that will likely arise when the U.S. Supreme Court considers the statutory challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, in the upcoming case King v. Burwell.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton comments on the ways the Internet has helped promote transparency and correct misinformation, particularly in religious organizations.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court recently granted review to decide whether a Los Angeles municipal code violates the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Colb argues that, much like general warrants of old, the provision in question empowers police to perform unreasonable searches in blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment.
U.C. Davis law professor Vikram David Amar discusses how Arizona’s Proposition 122 addresses not only federalism concerns but also serves as an intra-state reorganization of power.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf analogizes the authority of the government to enact quarantine measures to its authority (as established under Supreme Court precedents) to detain unlawful enemy combatants. Dorf argues that while courts are likely to reject the most outrageous detention policies, they are unlikely to reject policies simply for being misguided or unwise.
Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton explains how extreme religious liberty undermines the ability of the government to quarantine individuals with Ebola or other highly infectious diseases.
UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar discusses a case the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this Term regarding the so-called nondelegation doctrine. Amar argues that the Court should uphold the delegation of power in this case and that related concerns about conflicts of interest and anti-competition that may arise from some delegations to market actors are better handled under a due process analysis.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda critiques the U.S. Government’s asserted power to prosecute alleged war criminal in military commissions.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf highlights similarities and differences between the U.S. Supreme Court’s inaction during the Civil Rights Era and presently, with regard to the issue of same-sex marriage.
