University of Illinois College of Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar discusses a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next week—Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. As Amar points out, that case lies at the intersection of many contentious aspects of 21st century American democracy, including dissatisfaction with elected officials, partisan zeal, racial equality, and federal–state relations.

Cornell University law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on a finding by the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights that an Illinois school district had violated anti-discrimination laws by barring a transgender girl from showering and changing in the girls’ locker room without restrictions. Colb argues that perhaps the best solution for everyone may be to have individual showers for everyone, rather than singling out a single person or disregarding the privacy concerns of everyone.

Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf considers whether Princeton should remove Woodrow Wilson’s name and likeness from the campus due to Wilson’s racist views and actions. Dorf points out that the question is complex for a number of reasons, and rather than offering an outright answer, he provides a framework for evaluating this and similar issues.

Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman comments on a recent decision by a Pennsylvania appellate court that Sherri Shepherd, despite her arguments to the contrary, is the legal mother of a child born via surrogate. Grossman describes the background of the case and the national patchwork of state laws on surrogacy and explains why the appellate court came to the correct conclusion as a matter of law.

Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies calls on us to reflect on the intensifying attacks in the United States against Islam and against the Black Lives Matter movement. Margulies argues that the attacks derive from a common source and that much can be learned from examining them together.

Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton argues that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution stands for the opposite of everything that ISIS stands for, and furthermore, that denying the religious roots of Islamic terrorists does a disservice both to peaceful Muslims and to the public at large. Hamilton points out that by identifying ISIS as religious extremists, we can better accept that they are dogmatic, unbending fundamentalists rather than mere political actors.

Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses a decision by a New York trial court that illustrates the continuing confusion caused by the civil union, despite its obsolescence in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in favor of marriage equality. Grossman provides a brief history of the civil union and its demise and critiques the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the trial court in this case.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda questions the practice of both the Hillary Clinton Campaign and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to employ unpaid interns. Rotunda argues that in both instances, the interns do not receive the type of training or education from the experience that is required in order for an unpaid internship not to violate federal labor laws.

Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses the claim that IQ scores of minorities should be upwardly adjusted for the purpose of eligibility for the death penalty. Drawing upon an article on the issue by Robert Sanger, Colb argues that even if the practice of adjusting IQ scores were scientifically supported (which it is not), doing so for death penalty purposes constitutes invidious race discrimination in violation of the federal Constitution.

George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan cautions against responding to terrorism by reflexively spending on security and military. Buchanan argues that such rash decisions can lead to high human and economic costs.

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.

Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies considers what it means to represent someone who is widely reviled—such as an alleged terrorist.

John W. Dean, former counsel to President Nixon, reflects on the life of former Senator Fred Thompson, who passed away from a recurrence of lymphatic cancer on November 1, 2015. Dean describes how he and Thompson met, when the latter served as minority counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee, and their repeated crossed paths over the following decades.

Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton predicts that the release of the motion picture Spotlight—which is about the cover up of child sex abuse by priests in the Boston Archdiocese—will force the hands of politicians and candidates across the country with respect to their positions on these issues.

Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb considers whether it is morally consistent for a person to be an ethical vegan and also to be pro-choice with respect to abortion.

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.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda argues for the use of cameras in the U.S. Supreme Court to improve transparency and access for greater numbers people.

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.

George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan considers the importance of a president himself (or herself) actually having deep knowledge of issues. Buchanan draws upon the presidencies of Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, Obama, and others, in concluding that the president’s advisors are crucial in determining the tone of a president’s impact.

Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf comments on the memoranda that supported the legality of the 2011 Navy SEAL raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan. Dorf argues that these “bin Laden” memos are, in at least one respect, as bad as the infamous “torture memos” that authorized the Bush Administration to use “enhanced interrogation” techniques on prisoners suspected of terrorism.