Berkeley Law professor Aaron Edlin and dean Erwin Chemerinsky respond to arguments by Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and Michigan Law dean emeritus Evan Caminker regarding the constitutionality of California’s recall process for governor. Professor Edlin and Dean Chemerinsky first rebut the argument that California Supreme Court precedent determines the outcome in this case and then argue on the merits that California’s recall process attempts to do in two steps what is clearly unconstitutional to do in one; because the ballot is an election for who will be governor, the candidate with the most votes should be the one chosen.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat critiques the conclusion of a study by Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College suggesting that the American public widely supports the death penalty. Professor Sarat points out that the study’s “sensationalist” questions are likely to elicit responses based on expectations of what the interviewer wants, rather than what respondents would do given the responsibility of deciding real cases in which a real person’s life is at stake.
In honor of the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of E.L. Doctorow’s book The Book of Daniel, Touro Law professor Rodger D. Citron reflects on the novel inspired by the case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Professor Citron explains why the book continues to be relevant today and argues that it not only illuminates the debate over the Rosenbergs case but also shows that the debate is important for understanding the 1960s and ensuing decades.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf considers the possible next steps for New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who recently announced his intention to resign amid multiple sexual harassment allegations. Professor Dorf observes that due to the media’s and society’s quick forgive-and-forget mentality, many disgraced politicians and celebrities quickly reemerge in the spotlight, suggesting that we are living in a post-shame society; Cuomo is likely to do the same.
Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and Michigan Law dean emeritus Evan Caminker explain why critiques of California’s upcoming vote to recall Governor Gavin Newsom are erroneous. Deans Amar and Caminker describe several other mechanisms that effectively deny voters the opportunity to elect whomever they might want and point out that those mechanisms are very similar, and in some cases, more restrictive, than the recall vote mechanism.
Penn professor Marci A. Hamilton describes how New York and Pennsylvania differ in their approaches to protecting child victims. Professor Hamilton praises New York for taking substantial steps to protect abuse survivors, in sharp contrast to Pennsylvania, where the state legislature has repeatedly failed to take meaningful action to give survivors access to justice.
Cornell Law professor Sherry F. Colb reflects on what the resignation of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo means about the #MeToo movement. Professor Colb examines the structure of allegations of gendered misconduct, and she points out that the small number of men who victimize women tend to do it repeatedly unless and until someone puts a stop to it once and for all.
NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher and appellate lawyers Rex Heinke and Jessica Weisel comment on a case the U.S. Supreme Court will hear next term that presents the question what role, if any, federal courts should play in facilitating discovery in foreign arbitrations. The authors argue that while the case seems to turn on a simple matter of statutory interpretation, the case may shed new light on how the current Court approaches traditional interpretive tools.
Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar comments on a recent lawsuit by former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich challenging the state legislature’s prohibition on his holding future state office. Dean Amar explains several reasons that the lawsuit is unlikely to succeed, including issues with the Eleventh Amendment, Article III standing, and justiciability.
Amherst College professor Austin Sarat and former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut explain what Fox News host Tucker Carlson really means when he praises Hungary and its dictator Viktor Orban. The authors point out that Carlson and many Trump loyalists in the Republican Party want, and seem ready to use violence to achieve, a radical undoing of America that redefines both what this country stands for and what it means to be an American citizen.
Cornell Law professor Sherry F. Colb explains why listening to people is a better way to persuade them to change their position on an issue than calling them out for inconsistency. Professor Colb navigates a hypothetical conversation to demonstrate how thoughtful attention and humility can be more convincing than arguing or attacking.
In light of the Presidential Commission holding hearings on Court expansion, Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf offers two reforms that build on the observations of others and his own experience. Professor Dorf suggests that the Court spread cases out over the entire year, rather than only between October and June/July, and that the Justices rotate the order of questioning from one argument to the next.
Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar describes some of the advantages of the in-person setting for law schools (as compared to remote instruction) as an explanation for why he is looking forward to the start of the fall semester being in person. Dean Amar expresses home that, thanks to the vaccines that the overwhelming majority of faculty and students have chosen to receive, law schools around the country will have a very positive, if not quite normal, intellectual and cultural experience.
Kathryn Robb, executive director of CHILD USAdvocacy and survivor of child sexual abuse, praises gymnast Simone Biles for setting a stellar example of courage and self-care. Robb points out that as a result of Biles’s actions, USA Gymnastics may have lost a team gold medal, but more importantly, future young elite athletes and children worldwide observed the actions of a hero.
University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton calls on local, state, and federal officials to require COVID-19 vaccination in order to effectively address the acute health crisis the virus’s variants imminently pose. Professor Hamilton argues that we should treat those who refuse to get vaccinated, without sound medical reasons for doing so, the same way we treat drunk drivers: civilly and criminally liable.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat argues that a People’s Commission—rather than a Presidential Commission—on the U.S. Supreme Court is the only way to ensure that a democratic dialogue that truly represents the interests of the American people. In support of this argument, Professor Sarat draws upon a recent Gallup poll about public confidence in the Court and the highly critical testimony of Yale Law’s Samuel Moyn and Harvard Law’s Nikolas Bowie.
UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin describes a recent conversation with Beverly Brazauskas—a woman who in 2003 lost a lawsuit against a Catholic bishop and diocese—in which Brazauskas reflects on her case. Professor Griffin points out that Brazauskas’s loss epitomizes the saying “you can’t win when you go up against the church” because religion in the United States is often treated as above the law.
UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan comments on the (again) impending debt ceiling crisis if Senate Republicans (again) do not adjust the federal debt ceiling by the end of this month. Professor Buchanan reiterates the reasons the debt ceiling is unconstitutional and calls upon President Biden to instruct the Treasury Department to pay all bills in full, using exactly as much borrowed money as Congress’s duly enacted laws require, and to immediately announce that he will do so.
Cornell Law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Vannoy, in which it held that a prisoner may not invoke the denial of his Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous jury as a basis for challenging his criminal conviction when filing a federal habeas corpus petition. Professor Colb explains why, if cost/benefit analysis played a role in determining retroactivity, the Court perhaps should have decided that case the other way.
NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher and Hofstra Law professor Julian G. Ku comment on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Nestlé v. Doe, in which the Court held that mere “corporate activity” within the United States is not enough to satisfy the general presumption against the extraterritorial application of federal law. Professor Estreicher and Ku point out that questions about the scope of future ATS claims or corporate liability may never be resolved if the vast majority of ATS claims are dismissed as a result of the Court’s reinvigorated extraterritoriality test.