In light of recent events in Dallas, Texas, Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf considers the use by local police of a “bomb robot” to kill the man who shot twelve police officers and two civilians. In particular, Dorf addresses (1) whether the use of the bomb robot represents an important change in policing, (2) whether the robot is a military tool inappropriately used in a domestic policing situation, and (3) whether its use in this instance violated the Constitution.

Inspired by a Dan Savage podcast on the topic, Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb considers both the concept of “virtuous pedophiles” and some of its potential implications. Colb explains what this term means and draws several comparisons to other individuals who may be oriented toward a certain action that is either illegal or prohibited to them, ultimately expressing ambivalence toward the notion of the virtuous pedophile.

Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies reacts to the lack of response by many important people and organizations to recent shootings by police of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, Minnesota. Margulies points out that when leadership is silent on an issue, people will take to the streets to try to rectify it, often perpetuating violence.

John W. Dean, former counsel to President Nixon, delves into the FBI’s findings regarding the Hillary Clinton classified email investigation, as explained in a recent statement by FBI Director James Comey. Dean further breaks down how the statements are likely to continue to adversely affect Clinton’s presidential campaign due to the vague nature of Comey's testimony, even after the FBI concluded that no reasonable prosecutor would pursue a criminal case on this matter.

Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton comments on Mississippi’s latest law stigmatizing and marginalizing the LGBTQ community, and compares it to the federal First Amendment Defense Act. Hamilton argues that these divisive and discriminatory laws resemble apartheid in South Africa in that they are purported to be accommodations but in fact are simply immoral and wrong.

Cornell University law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota, in which the Court held that states may criminalize the refusal to take a breathalyzer test but may not criminalize the refusal to take a blood test, absent a warrant, as an ordinary incident of an arrest for driving while impaired. Colb explains why the Court distinguished the two types of tests and argues that the decision effectively balances competing interests in public safety and individual privacy.

SMU Dedman School of Law Professor Joanna Grossman comments on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, in which the Court struck down certain restrictions on abortion clinics that imposed an undue burden on women’s constitutional right of access to abortion. Grossman describes the history of abortion access in the United States and how the Court’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health fits within that history.

Dean and law professor at Illinois Law, Vikram David Amar comments on Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion last week in Fisher v. Texas, where the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the part of the University of Texas undergraduate admissions policy that formally takes the race of individual applicants into account in admitting a portion of the entering freshman class. Amar praises the opinion for being more forthright than other majority opinions of the Court in this area of law, but he expresses concern that in some respects Justice Kennedy’s language may actually obfuscate the legal doctrine at issue.

John W. Dean, former counsel to President Nixon, explains the significance of the U.S. Supreme Court’s equal division in the immigration case United States v. Texas, which involved a challenge to the Obama administration’s sweeping immigration policy. Dean argues that the Court is effectively punting the political question of the immigration policy to the winner of the 2016 presidential election.

George Washington University law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why it is in the best interests of Republican leaders for them to admit that Hillary Clinton would be a tolerable president, rather than to support Donald Trump. Buchanan argues that for them to continue to support Trump is to risk putting a dangerous loose cannon in the White House, who at best will render the Republican party unrecognizable, and at worst could tear apart the country.

Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the procedural issues the U.S. Supreme Court recently addressed in the Texas abortion case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. Dorf explains why the majority’s reasoning on the procedural issues is reasonable (and in his view, correct), notwithstanding the criticism by the dissent.

Cornell University law professor Sherry F. Colb discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Utah v. Strieff, holding that evidence found in that case as a result of a Fourth Amendment violation was not the direct consequence of the violation and was therefore properly admitted into evidence against the defendant under the attenuation doctrine. Colb explains how one throwaway line in the opinion, if taken to its logical conclusion, could potentially spell the death of the exclusionary rule.

Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies explains why a criminal conviction of police officers is neither a necessary nor sufficient component of justice. In fact, Margulies argues that those who would dismantle the carceral state should not be the first to invoke it by seeking convictions as the sole means of justice.

John W. Dean, former counsel to President Nixon, continues his discussion of the federal lawsuit against Trump University. As Dean points out, Trump’s attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel drew public attention to this lawsuit and may further harm his presidential bid if his confidential and video depositions are released, which Dean argues is likely.

Cardozo law professor Marci A. Hamilton describes a relatively new phenomenon of religious leaders coming together to criticize bad acts—even bad acts perpetrated by people who purport to be religious themselves. Hamilton explains how for too long, religious actors seemed beyond reproach no matter what they did, simply by nature of being religious. She expresses great relief that such a period seems to be passing, as evidenced by the widespread support for the LGBTQ community in response to the recent shooting at the Orlando gay club Pulse.

Cornell University law professor Sherry F. Colb considers the changing meaning of the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Miller v. Alabama, which held that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole. Colb discusses specifically the Court’s decision earlier this year in Montgomery v. Lousiana, which held that Miller must be applied retroactively on state collateral review.

Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman praises Gillian Thomas’s new book Because of Sex: One Law, Ten Cases, and Fifty Years That Changed American Women’s Lives at Work, which profiles ten of the most important Supreme Court cases to the advancement of women’s equality in the workplace.

Chapman University professor Ronald Rotunda comments on the increasingly controversial positions taken by the American Law Institute (ALI), which is one of the most important nongovernmental legal institutions in the United States. Rotunda describes some of the changes in laws proposed in recent editions of the ALI’s highly influential Model Codes and Restatements.

Dean and law professor at Illinois Law, Vikram David Amar discusses Donald Trump's public criticism of Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is currently presiding over the federal fraud lawsuit against Trump University. Amar weighs Trump's arguments as to Judge Curiel's purported bias toward him against what is known about Trump's own tendency to personalize disagreements without cause. Amar argues further that while some opinions are in fact formed as a result of one's ethnicity and experiences as a racial minority, this does not apply in the present instance for a number of reasons, each of which Amar explores in today's column.

Neil H. Buchanan, a law professor and economist at George Washington University, discusses the negative opinions a large number of Americans hold about both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the lead-up to the 2016 Presidential Election. He further explains how peoples' discontent with Clinton differs from that relating to Trump, revealing a stark disparity between the two candidates' qualifications to become President. Where Clinton's naysayers frequently offer vague or unsubstantiated complaints, Buchanan argues that the criticism aimed at Trump is far more substantive.