In Part Two of this two-part series of columns, Justia columnist and Cornell law professor Sherry Colb continues her examination of Navarette v. California, the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether anonymous tips are sufficient to create reasonable suspicion to support a stop by officers. The case involves the relationship between probable cause and reasonable suspicion, as well as the role of known informants and anonymous informants in helping police meet each of these standards, in turn, to shed light on what is normally required to justify an arrest or stop.

Justia columnist and U. Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry comments on why and how debt collection is often done by text, as opposed to other means, describing the sources that pertain to this area of law, including federal statutes. Ramasastry argues that this practice of texting ought to be prohibited unless consumers explicitly consent to it, and discusses a recent FTC enforcement action in this area of law.

Justia columnist and attorney Julie Hilden comments on an updated California law that protects celebrities' children from the paparazzi, with penalties of jail time and hefty fines. Hilden suggests that the new law ignores serious First Amendment concerns, and that civil remedies, rather than criminal sanctions, might have been enough, particularly in light of those concerns.

Justia columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman discusses the recent developments in New Jersey culminating in today’s first same-sex marriages performed in that state. She describes the relatively complex journey to marriage equality in that state and explains how the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last term in United States v. Windsor led to the New Jersey Supreme Court refusing to delay enforcement of a lower court’s ruling striking down the ban on same-sex marriage.

Justia columnist and attorney David Kemp discusses a recent federal lawsuit filed against the United Nations for allegedly causing a cholera epidemic in Haiti. Kemp discusses factors weighing for and against finding the U.N. liable for the epidemic in light of recent evidence all but establishing that U.N. peacekeepers introduced the deadly disease to the struggling country. Kemp notes that as a policy matter, the threat of lawsuits should not serve to discourage international humanitarian aid, but nor should aid organizations be immune from liability for gross misconduct. Ultimately, Kemp concludes that the optimal outcome would be a declaratory judgment against the U.N. but without an award of monetary damages.

Justia columnist and former counsel to the president John Dean comments on whether current Republican obstructionism could be charged as a federal crime. In particular, Dean questions whether Section 371 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the government of the United States, applies here. Dean concludes, however, for interesting reasons, that, even if Section 371 could apply, no criminal charges ought to be brought.

Justia columnist and Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton takes strong issue with California Governor Jerry Brown’s decision to veto anti-child-abuse legislation. She argues that, in the civil rights movement for children, which she notes, is transforming children from property into persons in the United States, a critical element is giving child sex abuse victims meaningful access to justice, and she castigates Governor Brown for ignoring children's rights.

In Part One in a two-part series of columns, Justia columnist and Cornell law professor Sherry Colb considers the Supreme Court case of Navarette v. California, which asks whether police may lawfully stop a vehicle for reckless driving on the basis of an anonymous tip. Colb explains why that question is difficult, for two key reasons.

Justia columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman comments on a ruling allowing a child to have three legal parents, and a related measure that California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law. Grossman covers both the facts and law pertaining to the case, and explains why California, alone among the states, allowed a three-parent situation to be established.

Justia guest book reviewer and Pace law professor David Cassuto comments on the recently published book by Justia columnist and Cornell law professor Sherry Colb, Mind If I Order the Cheeseburger and Other Questions People Ask Vegans. Many readers of the column and/or the book, will find themselves interested and educated about veganism, and possibly even ready to give it a try.

Justia columnist, George Washington law professor, and economist Neil Buchanan clarifies how many people’s—including many journalists’—failure to truly understand the context of the impending debt ceiling disaster causes them to misunderstand both the President’s choice between defaulting and not defaulting, and his possible strategies if he chooses to avoid default. Buchanan also explains how the Federal Reserve could play the ultimate savior’s role in the crisis. He also offers a driving metaphor to explain the situation that President Obama faces, and why he may legitimately need to break the rules to solve it.

Justia guest columnist and Loyola Law School professor Paula Mitchell continues her series of columns on the death penalty in California. She describes the methods trial courts must use in deciding whether to exclude prospective jurors in death penalty cases. She then examines several cases suggesting that trial court judges do not necessarily act even-handedly when excusing jurors based on their views on the death penalty.

Justia columnist and attorney David Kemp discusses a case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on the first day of its 2013-2014 Term. That case, Madigan v. Levin, raises the question whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) precludes age discrimination claims brought directly under the Equal Protection Clause. Kemp notes that the particular facts of the case and the tone of arguments at the Supreme Court suggest that the Court may not decide the case on the merits. However, he argues that the case does present important questions on the power of Congress to abrogate individuals’ right to sue for constitutional violations, and its duty to do so only when the statutory remedies are both adequate and broadly accessible.

How has a minority in the House been able to hold the country and the global economy hostage? Justia columnist and Cornell law professor Michael Dorf’s answer is a matter of ideology, politics, and constitutional structure. As Dorf explains, Congress was not designed to work with political parties and has only been awkwardly retrofitted to do so.

Justia columnist and former counsel to the president John Dean makes a forceful case against the Republicans’ decision to shut down the government, calling the move “government by extortion,” and explaining precisely why he believes that, for many reasons, the Republicans should have eschewed this gambit as completely out of bounds.

Justia columnist and Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton contends that Catholic and evangelical leaders are waging a new war against the use of contraception, enlisting public relations experts, lobbyists, and lawyers, despite the fact that very large majorities of Americans support contraception. One strategy, Hamilton notes, involves “conscience clauses” that would, for instance, allow pharmacists not to hand over contraceptives if it violates the pharmacist’s own anti-contraception beliefs.

Justia columnist and Cornell law professor Sherry Colb argues that eating meat from a laboratory culture does not allow diners to evade the ethical problems that otherwise arise from eating meat. For one thing, Colb explains how animals still die from cultured meat, for contrary to popular belief, cultured meat, contrary to popular belief, involves the use and slaughter of animals, as Colb explains. Colb also notes that, unlike a person who needs an organ transplant and has no alternative, a person who buys In Vitro meat has numerous vegan alternatives.

Justia columnist and attorney David Kemp describes two recent lawsuits filed in Virginia challenging that state’s laws prohibiting same-sex marriages. Kemp describes the two cases, explains why Virginia is a favorable venue for such legal challenges, and notes the prevalence of other similar cases around the country. Kemp concludes that the existence of so many cases challenging discriminatory laws must be seen as a step in the right direction for same-sex marriage advocates.

Justia columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman and Justia guest columnist and Stanford law professor Lawrence Friedman together comment on an epic contest over an estate that totaled over $300 million. Grossman and Friedman explain why the estate at issue, belonging to a woman named Huguette Clark, raised a host of complex issues that were ripe for a will contest, and they comment on the possibility that the will contest might have been avoided in various ways.

Justia columnist, George Washington law professor, and economist Neil Buchanan expresses very strong disagreement with the economic policies of Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, who recently claimed electoral victory. Buchanan contends that Merkel’s policies are bad for Europe, the United States, and the world, and carefully details the reasons behind his conclusions. Though Merkel is little known by Americans, as Buchanan notes, she will surely exert influence on the U.S., so, Buchanan warns, Americans ought to take more notice of her policies and influence.