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.
U.C. Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar explains how the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius—upholding Obamacare as a proper exercise of Congress’s tax powers and striking down a significant expansion of Medicaid—weakens the case of subsequent challengers to Obamacare in King v. Burwell.
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.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda comments on the purportedly random assignment of judges to cases in federal courts. Rotunda points out that particularly in the Ninth Circuit, which has been singled out as having highly unlikely results of “random” assignment, the process of case assignment is unnecessarily opaque; Rotunda argues for greater transparency to ensure fairness and justice.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman comments on the recent divorce settlement between Sue Ann and Harold Hamm in which Sue Ann received $1 billion—one of the biggest divorce settlements in history.
Guest columnist and Cornell University visiting professor Joseph Margulies discusses how the Ferguson grand jury’s decision not to indict reflects the present ideology of American justice. Margulies argues that unless policymakers are willing to change that ideology that pits “us” against “them,” meaningful change will be impossible.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses whether there is a meaningful distinction between using juror testimony to invalidate the substance of a jury’s verdict and using the testimony to call into question the composition of the jury. Colb notes that a case raising that issue is before the U.S. Supreme Court this Term.
U.C. Davis law professor Vikram David Amar comments on the lower bar pass rate for the July 2014 exam as compared to prior years. Amar discusses the response by the exam’s creators and how educators, practitioners, and others can use the incident to explore broader questions regarding the licensure requirements for the practice of law.
George Washington University law professor and economist Neil Buchanan explains why recent events detracting from the Affordable Care Act might lead to serious consideration of a single-payer health care system. Buchanan includes in his discussion the Supreme Court’s recent decision in NFIB v. Sebelius, a careless statement by economist Jonathan Gruber, and the upcoming challenge of it before the Supreme Court, King v. Burwell.
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.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda comments on the pervasive problem of attorneys overbilling their clients.
Former counsel to the president John W. Dean considers the likelihood that a woman will be elected either as president or vice president in the coming election.
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.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman comments on a recent decision by the Alabama Supreme Court refusing to interpret that state’s “slayer” statute in a way that defies the statutory scheme of inheritance.
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.
George Washington University law professor and economist Neil Buchanan argues that anti-government ideologues deny facts in order to support their theories of the economy.
