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.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda discusses the benefits of law firms designating in-house ethics counsel rather than relying on outside counsel for ethical issues that arise during the practice of law.
Justia columnist and former counsel to the president John W. Dean comments on the present Ebola panic and politicians’ reactions to it. Dean critiques these reactions as not based on medical knowledge and instead serving only to deter people from assisting to contain the international epidemic.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil Buchanan argues that to effectively combat economic inequality, the government must employ both progressive taxation and progressive spending.
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.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb comments on the new California law defining rape as the absence of affirmative consent, rather than as the presence of indicators of non-consent. Colb praises the law and addresses some of the arguments in opposition to it.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses a case in which the Nebraska Supreme Court held a five-year-old boy should keep his original surname despite petitions by each of his unmarried parents to change it. Grossman describes how the case reflects the many tensions over child naming aggravated by unwed parenting, divorce, and remarriage.
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.
In light of the recent passing of Ben Bradlee, former counsel to the president John W. Dean recounts his last visit with Bradlee, who was a top editor at The Washington Post during the Nixon Administration and handled the Post’s coverage of the Pentagon Papers and Watergate.
University of Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry comments on a smartphone app known as Good2Go, which is intended to establish affirmative consent for the purpose of sexual encounters. Ramasastry describes some of the app’s shortcomings, including its lack of specificity with regard to what is consented to and its lax information privacy policy.
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.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton describes and praises Washington State’s solution to nullify the discriminatory effect of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc..
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses a case the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this Term regarding the meaning of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. Colb argues that the Court may properly see fit to revisit its current approach to hearsay and the Confrontation Clause.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses a recent ruling by the Tennessee Supreme Court obfuscating, rather than clarifying, that state’s laws on surrogacy agreements.
Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton discusses the implications of a child (Malala Yousafzai) and an advocate of child protection (Kailash Satyarthi) winning the Nobel Peace Prize this year.
U.C. Davis law professors Vikram David Amar and Alan E. Brownstein discuss a case the U.S. Supreme Court that will be argued in the coming months, which presents the issue how courts should define “true threats” that fall outside First Amendment protection and thus are subject to punishment.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil Buchanan explains how the Ebola crisis highlights the dangerous consequences of demonizing the government.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses the constitutional basis for, and limitations on, the quarantine of individuals for public health purposes, such as to prevent the spread of Ebola.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda critically discusses civil forteiture laws in Philadelphia, which he argues are unnecessarily harsh and extend beyond their intended purposes.
