John Cannan, a research and instructional services librarian at Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law in Philadelphia, critiques a proposal by Congress to enact the Copyright Small-Claims Enforcement Act (CASE), which would create a copyright small claims court through which rights holders would be able to pursue small copyright infringement claims. Cannan argues that CASE would empower copyright trolls and subject nearly every American to hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of legal expenses. Cannan concludes that rather than being a sword for the creative middle class, CASE seems more like a trap for the unwary.
Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb why the question whether a state may abolish the insanity defense (presently before the Supreme Court) is similar to the question whether a state should adopt so-called animal welfare laws. Colb argues that both the insanity defense and animal welfare measures provide the public with a sense of moral relief but only if we willfully ignore the reality of how animals and criminal defendants are treated.
Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, discusses the private testimony of U.S. diplomat Bill Taylor regarding President Trump’s interactions with Ukraine. Falvy argues that by meticulously tracking his digital and verbal conservations with other high-level players, Taylor is forcing the implicated officials to engage at a similar level of detail and precluding them from asserting blanket “I do not recall” defenses.
SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments on the recent revelation by Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren that she experienced pregnancy discrimination in 1971. Grossman points out that if we as a society are skeptical that pregnancy discrimination was commonplace in 1971, before it became unlawful, then it must be even harder for some to believe that women continue to experience discrimination today.
Marci A. Hamilton, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that the present allegations against President Trump require representatives and senators to act in the interest of the voters and seek the truth. Hamilton explains that the checks and balances our Constitution’s framers put in place were designed for this very type of situation, and the power to impeach serves a vital role of protecting the people.
Illinois law professor Lesley Wexler comments on a recent report on Faculty Sexual Misconduct issued by a committee at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign that calls for a sweeping overhaul of the University’s approach to sexual harassment. Wexler begins to explore the proposed reforms, describing the major changes and what they aim to address, and she raises some of the questions that the reforms present.
University of Florida Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan criticizes Democratic pundits and presidential candidates for trying to force Senator Elizabeth Warren to say explicitly whether she intends to raise taxes to pay for her healthcare-for-all plan. Buchanan points out that their insistence on this point essentially does Republicans’ work for them, rather than setting the table for an honest and clear discussion about the financial costs (by any name) of reform.
Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf explains why U.S. Supreme Court cases—confusingly, Nixon v. United States and United States v. Nixon—together should foreclose any legal arguments that might have supported President Trump’s strategy to fight impeachment. Dorf explains each of the precedents and their bearing on today’s situation.
Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on a recent decision by a federal district court judge blocking implementation of California’s law that would deny ballot access to presidential candidates who have not released their tax returns. Amar explains why the decision is likely to be overturned on appeal, and, if it were to go that far, why there is a good chance even a majority of the current U.S. Supreme Court would also agree the decision was incorrect.
Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb discusses the rationale behind Federal Rule of Evidence 609, which allows for impeachment of criminal defendants’ testimony with prior convictions, and the seminal cases applying that rule. Colb explains why the jury’s reaction to evidence of prior convictions is both predictable and irrational.
SMU Dedman School of Law professors Joanna L. Grossman and Grant M. Hayden discuss several cases set for argument this week before the U.S. Supreme Court raising the question whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects against sexual orientation discrimination or transgender discrimination. Grossman ad Hayden describe the history of the protections of Title VII and explain why a textualist reading of Title VII should mandate a ruling protecting employees against sexual orientation and transgender discrimination.
Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and professor Jason Mazzone engage in a dialogue over when it is constitutionally permissible (and problematic) for the state to require that individuals identify their race on a government form. Their dialogue arises from a lawsuit in Virginia challenging that state’s law (which has since been amended) that required individuals to disclose their race on a marriage license application form.
University of Florida Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan comments on a recent essay by Binyamin Appelbaum and highlights what he perceives as Appelbaum’s most important arguments with respect to the economics profession. Buchanan argues that we should welcome the decline of economics because it exemplifies an academic field given too much responsibility with too little accountability.
Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the recent unanimous decision by the U.K. Supreme Court ruling that Prime Minister Boris Johnson acted unlawfully in asking the Queen to prorogue Parliament. Dorf explains how that ruling highlights the error of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause, in which the Court declined to intervene in a political gerrymandering case, citing the so-called political question doctrine.
Illinois law professor Lesley Wexler discusses signs of a possible reversal of the global trend toward nationalism and European rejection of migrants. Wexler explains how a broad regional immigration agreement emerged and what a migration distribution proposal might look like, as well as the important questions such a proposal raises.
NYU law professor Samuel Estreicher and 3L Sara Spaur argue that the premise of a recent National Labor Relations Board proposed rulemaking—that an employer must exercise direct and immediate control over employees to be a joint employer under the National Labor Relations Act—is not supported by the common law, as is required. Estreicher and Spaur explain that the Restatements of Agency and four key cases support the opposite conclusion, that the test for employer status is not actual control, but simply the right to control employees.
Marci A. Hamilton, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the country’s leading church-state scholars, comments on President Trump's recent visit speech at the United Nations Event on Religious Freedom that promotes his administration's brand of religious liberty. Hamilton argues that Trump is leading the nation toward toxic religious liberty that our nations framers—and particularly James Madison—warned against and attempted to prevent.
University of Florida Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that Biden’s campaign promise of a return to “normal” if he is elected President could result in the country’s situation becoming even worse than it currently is. Buchanan suggests that if Biden wins the nomination and the presidency and he is not seen as a serious fighter, he will lose a generation of voters forever.
Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb responds to a colleague’s claim (yet unconfirmed) that jurors have an easier time distinguishing truth from falsehood when they read a transcript of testimony than when they listen to and watch the testimony directly. Assuming the claim is true, Colb describes why that claim might at first be surprising and also why, on further consideration, it makes sense. She proposes that if the claim is true, we ought perhaps to consider whether the distractors inherent in live testimony should excludable under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on a memorandum recently issued by Andrew Wheeler, the administrator of the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), that announced directives to substantially reduce government funding for and mandating of animal testing of chemicals to which humans might be exposed. Dorf acknowledges that Wheeler’s motivation might be the deregulation of industries that produce chemical products (a legitimate concern expressed by some public health and environmental groups), but Dorf argues that the policy is win-win-win: better for the animals spared experimentation; less costly to the public fisc; and better for human health.