Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf describes the journey of the issue of same-sex marriage that has led to its reaching the U.S. Supreme Court this Term. Dorf explains what this path says about the relationship between social change and legal change.

Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman and University of Pittsburg law professor Deborah Brake continue their discussion of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Young v. UPS, in which the Court held that a pregnant UPS driver who was denied a light-duty accommodation that was routinely made available to other employees with similar lifting restrictions should have the opportunity to prove that the employer’s denial was discriminatory.

Former counsel to the president John W. Dean reflects on the life and achievements of American historian Stanley Kutler. Dean describes Stanley’s role in setting the public record straight with respect to Watergate and laments that the New York Times never seemed to quite understand Watergate, as evidenced by its gratuitously repeating a false charge about Stanley’s book in its obituary on him.

Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton describes how the conservative Christian agenda is steadily making its way into law, first through the federal RFRA, and then subsequently in other ways.

Cornell University visiting law professor Joseph Margulies comments on the recent death of Walter Scott, an unarmed black man whose murder by a police officer was caught on video and seen by the world. Margulies argues that Scott’s murder, while highly unusual and anomalous in some ways, also exemplifies the relationship between law enforcement and black citizens.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda critiques the suggestion that President Obama simply disregard the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision if it rules that the Affordable Care Act does not allow the federal government to subsidize federal health exchanges.

UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar comments on the case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding Texas’s rejection of a custom license plate application that included the Confederate flag. Specifically, Amar considers three First Amendment issues raised during the recent oral argument for that case.

Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses a recent criminal case out of Indiana, in which a woman was convicted and sentenced for feticide. Colb argues that while the situation as a whole is a tragedy, it also highlights a failure of the State of Indiana to have empathy for women in pain whose circumstances call for mercy rather than a pure retributive impulse.

In light of recent controversy in Indiana and Arkansas over RFRAs, Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses the nuanced question whether courts should interpret a general RFRA to apply in private litigation if the statute is silent on the matter.

Cornell University visiting law professor Joseph Margulies discusses the widespread phenomenon of conversations about criminal justice reform that notably exclude any mention of race.

Former counsel to the president John W. Dean discusses cyber law issues related to public shaming with the Internet Law Center’s Bennet Kelley.

Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb compares medical screening tests with dog sniffs for narcotics with respect to their propensity to yield Type I errors—also known as false positives. In particular, Colb references Justice Souter’s dissenting opinion in Illinois v. Caballes, in which he opined that the possibility that dogs would incorrectly indicate the presence of narcotics and lead to an invasive search meant that such dog sniffs constitute searches for Fourth Amendment purposes.

Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton discusses the dangers not only of the recently passed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), but also the even more extreme Arkansas RFRA that just passed in that state.

Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman and University of Pittsburg law professor Deborah Brake discuss the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Young v. UPS, in which the Court resolved some issues over the scope of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. In a second column, Grossman and Brake will comment on the implications of the ruling on other aspects of employment discrimination law.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda discusses the statutory interpretation question at issue in the U.S. Supreme Court case King v. Burwell, which could resolve the fate of Obamacare.

Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton discusses the danger of state RFRAs, particularly in light of Indiana’s recent passage of such a law. Hamilton cautions that such laws pose a serious threat to society and despite their name, do not “restore” nothing previously in laws.

UC Davis law professors Vikram David Amar and Alan E. Brownstein discuss the so-called “Sodomite Suppression Act”—a recently proposed California initiative. Amar and Brownstein argue that despite the clear illegality and immorality of the proposed initiative, many of the suggestions that the attorney who proposed it be punished or that the initiative process be altered to prevent these types of initiatives are themselves unconstitutional in some cases, and at best ill-advised in other cases.

George Washington law professor and economist Neil Buchanan discusses the debt ceiling law and explains why it must be repealed entirely.

Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf argues that modern constitutionalism supports economic libertarianism, due not only to judicial decisions but also the very structure of the Constitution. Dorf responds in part to a recent book review by Professor Suzanna Sherry, published in the March issue of the Harvard Law Review, that is highly critical of Professor Richard Epstein’s book The Classical Liberal Constitution.

Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses a recent decision on the residency requirement of New York’s divorce laws.