Guest columnists Tamar Frankel, the Robert B. Kent Professor of Law at Boston University School of Law, and Sezgi G. Fuechec, a foreign-trained transactional lawyer with an LL.M. degree in banking and financial law, discuss the trend of employee representation in corporate boards. Frankel and Fuechec point out that while idea of employee representation in the board level is not novel, it is an important development that more corporations should embrace now, rather than waiting until there is a significant conflict between employees, management, and financiers.

GW Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan describes why President Trump’s recent attacks on the nation’s independent central bank, the Federal Reserve, is dangerous and worrisome. Buchanan explains the reason the Fed is independent of politics and highlights the importance of its continued existence and independence, regardless of who is in the White House.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf debunks President Trump’s claim that he has kept his campaign promise to “protect coverage for patients with pre-existing conditions.” Dorf provides three primary reasons that the claim is dishonest: the administration’s position in a pending lawsuit; the GOP’s proposed alternative, which does not require insurance companies to offer policies that actually cover pre-existing conditions, and the claim that Democratic support of Medicare for All is “radical socialism.”

Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law, critiques Alan Dershowitz’s The Case Against Impeaching Trump, finding that the book is essentially a defense brief for President Trump that largely lacks meaningful legal analysis. Falvy argues that the book won’t persuade any legal scholars, but if at least 34 members of the GOP Senate caucus buy Dershowitz’s argument, Trump will likely not be forced from office.

Marci A. Hamilton, professor and resident senior fellow in the Program for Research on Religion at the University of Pennsylvania, criticizes Pennsylvania Republican leadership for letting down child sex abuse victims in that state by proposing a “tribunal” that amounts to faux justice rather than passing meaningful legislation. Hamilton calls upon the legislature to pass a real window via statute of limitation reform and to let the private entities handle their own compensation funds.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin comments on a case currently before the US Supreme Court—Madison v. Alabama—in which the Court will consider whether a death row inmate may constitutionally be executed despite his advanced dementia causing him not to recall the crime for which he is to be executed. Griffin highlights the ethical and legal issues raised in that case and addresses considerations on both sides.

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb argues that some people's belief in the trivial nature of sexual assault may go hand in hand with the belief that it never happened. Colb examines the relationship between denial and devaluation in other contexts, as well as in the context of gender oppression, and finds consistency in the thinking of people who hate or otherwise persecute others.

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments on a recent decision by a federal court in Florida correctly denying an employer’s motion for summary judgment in a workplace rape case that deserves a full trial on the merits. Grossman points out that anti-discrimination law is not sufficient to eliminate, or even substantially reduce, the incidence of sexual harassment at work, but it is unquestionably necessary to address that problem and protect survivors.

In this second of a four-part series about a new approach to community well-being, Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies comments on the problem of displacement. Margulies points out that influx of capital is not necessarily bad for community well-being but distinguishes gentrification, which can be good, from displacement, which is harmful to communities.

Illinois law professors Lesley Wexler and Colleen Murphy propose that the most lasting legacy of the Kavanaugh confirmation battle will not be Judge Kavanaugh’s imprint on the Court, but the bravery Dr. Ford has inspired in others. Wexler and Murphy view the recent events through the lens of transitional justice and argue that the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh is not dispositive or even indicative of whether the aspirations for #MeToo movement may be realized.

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and professor Jason Mazzone consider the constitutionality of California’s recently passed law requiring that publicly held corporations to have a minimum number of women on their boards of directors. In this first of a series of columns on this topic, Amar and Mazzone analyze whether, under the Equal Protection Clause, the law fails federal intermediate scrutiny.

GW Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why Brett Kavanaugh’s defiant responses to questioning by senators about his conduct while drinking ignore common knowledge about the effects of alcohol and illustrate the toxic combination of drinking culture and young men who think their actions have no consequences.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf anticipates the possible next steps in the federal government’s lawsuit against California over the state’s new law mandating net neutrality. Dorf explains why, if conservative scholars and Supreme Court justices succeed in what seems to be their goal of weakening federal regulatory agencies, that could ironically be a boon to net neutrality and to government regulation more broadly.

Marci A. Hamilton, professor and resident senior fellow in the Program for Research on Religion at the University of Pennsylvania, explains why it is so important for the justice for the victims of sex abuse in Pennsylvania that that state continue its momentum for statute of limitations reform. Hamilton explains that the state legislature has only seven days left in its session to pass the reform.

Marci A. Hamilton, professor and resident senior fellow in the Program for Research on Religion at the University of Pennsylvania, explains how Bill Cosby, Catholic clergy, and Brett Kavanaugh are all in different stages in the justice system but cut from the same cloth. Hamilton points out that in the era of #MeToo, powerful men can no longer evade credible serial accusations of sexual misconduct.

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb observes that we as a society have become extremely credulous for an era of cynicism and that we as individuals have divested ourselves of critical judgment, preferring instead to defer to people who share our political ideology or qualify for special status for some other reason. Colb considers what might be driving this deference and how we can combat it. She points out that constructive disagreement is healthy and that “viewpoints are not violence, disagreement is not hatred, and no one has a patent on the truth.”

Illinois law professor Lesley Wexler considers whether there should be a moral (as opposed to legal) statute of limitations for wrongdoing and specifically what obligations a person who long ago committed sexual harassment or sexual assault owes his victim. Wexler proposes a model based on restorative justice principles that would involve acknowledgement of wrongdoing and of the victim and her account; responsibility taking, harm repair, a promise of non-repetition, and subsequent actions that demonstrate a commitment to that promise of non-repetition.

Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies argues that the current approach to community well-being will not save the American city. Rather, Margulies points out that communities must remove wealth from individual ownership and place it in the shared hands of the community.

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar considers whether the recent purported ratifications by Nevada and Illinois of the Equal Rights Amendment to the US Constitution, proposed in 1972, have any legal effect. Amar proposes seven questions and answers raised by these states’ actions and argues that even if a 38th state were to ostensibly ratify that amendment (the number needed to amend the Constitution), it could not be considered part of the Constitution.

GW Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan writes a letter that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh could have written (but didn’t) in response to allegations that he sexually assaulted and attempted to rape a 15-year-old girl when he was a 17-year-old high school student. Using a fictional letter as a rhetorical device, Buchanan points out that Kavanaugh could have acknowledged that he, like anyone who has ever drunk to excess, does not recall exactly what he did or did not do while drunk, particularly on the night in question, but instead, Kavanaugh flatly denied that the allegations could be true. Buchanan argues that Kavanaugh’s response to the allegations demonstrates that he does not belong on the US Supreme Court.