Justia columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman comments on the culmination of the lengthy fight over the estate of Anna Nicole Smith’s late husband, J. Howard Marshall II, a billionaire Texas oil tycoon. J. Howard’s son Pierce was the other party asserting a claim to the estate. After Anna Nicole and Pierce both passed away, the litigation still continued, pursued by their own estates. Grossman chronicles how this clash made it all the way to the Supreme Court twice; explains why the dispute had spawned litigation in both Texas and California; and describes the reasons that led the High Court to ultimately rule against Anna Nicole—and why it inspired Chief Justice Roberts to quote from the Dickens novel “Bleak House.”

Justia columnist, George Washington law professor, and economist Neil Buchanan responds to a recent New York Times editorial by Laurence Tribe regarding the constitutionality of the federal government's debt ceiling. Tribe contended that the limit is constitutional; Buchanan contends that it is not. In his column, Buchanan summarizes and responds to Tribe's arguments regarding the key constitutional provision at issue, the Public Debt Clause.

Justia columnist and U.C., Davis law professor Vikram Amar begins a two-part series on two important recent rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, both of which may end up before the Supreme Court. In this first column, Amar comments on the Sixth Circuit ruling that upheld Obamacare—citing a number of factors that make the decision noteworthy. These factors include a conservative judge's vote to uphold Obamacare; that same judge's use of broad reasoning in doing so; the fact that the dissenter was a district court judge; the decision's timing; and the arguments the two judges in the majority could have made, but declined to make, in support of the statute.

Justia columnist, George Washington University law professor, and economist Neil H. Buchanan comments on the current situation regarding the federal debt limit, considers how it could be resolved, and notes that President Obama could take a constitutional stand in order to resolve the impasse. Buchanan begins by explaining for readers what the debt limit is and why it is important now; explains why the debt-limit law that set the ceiling was never necessary in the first place; describes the potentially very grave consequences of passing the debt-limit ceiling with that law in place, as it is now; and contends that our current game of political “chicken” regarding the debt limit is dangerous indeed. He then describes a possible constitutional solution that President Obama could opt for, based on arguments that the debt limit is illegitimate and void as a matter of constitutional law. Finally, Buchanan explains why, even if the debt limit were to be removed from the picture, an underlying, related problem with the political process would still remain.

Justia columnist and U. Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry comments on a new spate of lawsuits, which are being filed by the producers of X-rated movies and "B" movies and which target persons who the producers claim downloaded these movies for free via BitTorrent. Ramasastry explains how the suits work; contrasts them with earlier suits by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) against alleged music downloaders; and concludes that while the movie companies surely have the right to enforce their copyrights, several procedural aspects of these suits are very disturbing and should be addressed by the courts. Ramasastry also notes that the settlements the companies are seeking, and getting, from individuals appear to be quite high.

Justia columnist and Cornell law professor Michael Dorf comments on the Supreme Court's recent, 5-4 decision in Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett. Dorf explains the Arizona campaign finance system at issue, which the Court struck down, and comments generally on the Court's approach to campaign finance, which he argues leaves loopholes that millionaire candidates can easily exploit. Dorf also explains the difference between "leveling up," where less wealthy candidates receive public money, and "leveling down," where wealthier candidates are limited in what they can spend – and notes how the Court has ruled on both approaches to campaign finance.

Justia columnist and former counsel to the president John Dean comments on the second trial of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, on charges related to a number of instances of political corruption – one of which, perhaps most famously, relates to filling then-President-elect Obama’s open Senate seat. (Obama himself played no part in the scheme). Dean explains why, in Blagojevich’s first trial, he was convicted on only one count, whereas in this second trial, the jury found him guilty on 17 of 20 counts. Dean also covers the unusual voting system that the jury used during its deliberation and offers telling samples of the recordings that led to the conviction. In addition, he parallels Blagojevich’s defense with Nixon’s, and considers – based on conversations with a number of sentencing experts – what sentence Blagojevich may receive. Finally , Dean concludes that any appeal will likely fail, as the judge who oversaw the trial is seen as too intelligent and able to have erred on the law.

Justia columnist and Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton comments on the situation unfolding in Hawaii with respect to the state's laws regarding statute of limitations for child sex abuse. As she explains, Hawaii's House and Senate each unanimously passed a bill that would create a two-year-long window of opportunity for child sex-abuse victims to file civil claims against their abusers, and against those who aided the abusers, even if the former statute of limitations had previously expired; and that would eliminate civil statutes of limitations entirely. But Hamilton – who has worked on the legislation with Sen. Maile Shimabukuro, abuse survivors, and others over the past year – notes that Hawaii governor Neil Abercrombie has issued a statement indicating that he will veto the bill. Hamilton takes strong issue with his reasons for doing so, and contends that he should change his mind.

Justia columnist and Cornell law professor Sherry Colb comments on the Supreme Court's recent, 5-4 decision in J.D.B. v. North Carolina. There, the Court held that when police interrogate a suspect under the age of eighteen, the suspect’s youth bears on the question whether he was in “custody” at the time-- and was therefore entitled to hear the Miranda warnings before questioning began. Colb discusses the role of custody and interrogation in Miranda's protections, and explains the arguments that the majority and dissenting Justices marshaled to justify their respective positions. In addition, she contends that the dissenters in the case -- four conservative Justices -- essentially opined as they did due to a fundamental dislike for Miranda itself, rather than due to the wish that they cited for greater certainty and clarity in Miranda's application.

Justia columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden comments on the Supreme Court's decision yesterday, June 27, in the "violent" video games case. The Court decided, 7-2, to strike down California's law restricting minors' access to such games. Hilden explains the logic behind the opinion of the Court, written by Justice Scalia; contends that California made a mistake in framing its video-game law the way it did; and explains why Justice Breyer saw the case as more about the protection of children than about First Amendment rights, and accordingly dissented.

Justia columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman comments on the New York same-sex marriage law that was passed last Friday, June 24. She explains the details of the statute, and explains the legal context for, and ramifications of, this development -- both in New York State and nationally. Grossman also analyzes the exemptions that the law grants to religious institutions with respect to same-sex marriage, and notes that the provision of the new law that states that if part of the law is invalidated, the whole law is invalidated, makes challenges to the law especially perilous.