Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda comments on the concept of the “appearance of impropriety” that affects the regulation of the conduct of judges. Rotunda looks specifically at judicial election campaigns and points out that the statistical data do not support a conclusion a tit for tat relationship between campaign contributions and judicial decisions.

Vikram David Amar, law professor and dean at Illinois Law, and Michael Schaps, a California civil litigation attorney, discuss Justice Scalia’s provocative comments during last week’s oral argument in Fisher v. University of Texas. Amar and Schaps point out that viewed in the most charitable light, Justice Scalia’s comments are actually an attempt to articulate an academic theory—known as mismatch theory—not simply bare racism. Though the authors are not persuaded of mismatch theory, they critique Scalia’s assumption that truth of the theory would compel the abolition of affirmative action altogether.

George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan considers whether any Republican would ever leave the party in light of the increasingly extremist views of the influential party leaders. Buchanan concludes that it is highly unlikely, for a number of reasons, that even Donald Trump could drive away moderate Republicans from the GOP in any permanent sense.

In light of the oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf considers whether the school’s Ten Percent Plan is “race neutral.” Dorf distinguishes race consciousness from racial classifications, and he points out that Justice Kennedy—the Court’s usual swing vote on such issues—has historically found that distinction to be significant.

Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies observes that despite growing recognition of the need for comprehensive reform of the American criminal justice system, there are little to no policy changes on the horizon that could even potentially effect such comprehensive reform.

Former counsel to the president John W. Dean argues that Donald Trump’s campaign is showing to the national public what authoritarian politics is all about. Dean ultimately says that he does not find Trump’s rhetoric threatening, because an authoritarian such as Trump—even if he secures the nomination—cannot find broad enough voter support across the country.

Illinois Law professor and dean Vikram David Amar describes five unusual aspects of this week’s oral argument in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, in which the Supreme Case is considering the role of affirmative action in university admissions.

Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton argues that Donald Trump and his extreme comments illustrate the need for civil, accurate discourse, rather than blunderbuss and showmanship. Hamilton points to the work by the Program in Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society at the University of Pennsylvania, which is conducting a social experiment that shows that people from different sides of the political/religious divide can have a meaningful conversation and reach agreement for the common good.

George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that the Republican presidential candidates fear doing anything risky or unpleasant, such as criticizing the extreme views of Donald Trump or failing to enact meaningful gun control reform.

Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman comments on a recent lawsuit by Charlie Sheen’s ex-fiancée seeking damages for Sheen’s failure to disclose his HIV status. Grossman discusses the nature of the complaint filed and describes how civil and criminal laws must balance the right of individuals to sexual privacy against interests such as public health.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda critiques Donald Trump’s presidential campaign as falsely claiming to be self-financing. Rotunda explains what Trump is actually doing with the political donations to his campaign, and why it is not self-financing at all.

University of Illinois College of Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar discusses a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next week—Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. As Amar points out, that case lies at the intersection of many contentious aspects of 21st century American democracy, including dissatisfaction with elected officials, partisan zeal, racial equality, and federal–state relations.

Cornell University law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on a finding by the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights that an Illinois school district had violated anti-discrimination laws by barring a transgender girl from showering and changing in the girls’ locker room without restrictions. Colb argues that perhaps the best solution for everyone may be to have individual showers for everyone, rather than singling out a single person or disregarding the privacy concerns of everyone.

Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf considers whether Princeton should remove Woodrow Wilson’s name and likeness from the campus due to Wilson’s racist views and actions. Dorf points out that the question is complex for a number of reasons, and rather than offering an outright answer, he provides a framework for evaluating this and similar issues.

Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman comments on a recent decision by a Pennsylvania appellate court that Sherri Shepherd, despite her arguments to the contrary, is the legal mother of a child born via surrogate. Grossman describes the background of the case and the national patchwork of state laws on surrogacy and explains why the appellate court came to the correct conclusion as a matter of law.

Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies calls on us to reflect on the intensifying attacks in the United States against Islam and against the Black Lives Matter movement. Margulies argues that the attacks derive from a common source and that much can be learned from examining them together.

Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton argues that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution stands for the opposite of everything that ISIS stands for, and furthermore, that denying the religious roots of Islamic terrorists does a disservice both to peaceful Muslims and to the public at large. Hamilton points out that by identifying ISIS as religious extremists, we can better accept that they are dogmatic, unbending fundamentalists rather than mere political actors.

Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses a decision by a New York trial court that illustrates the continuing confusion caused by the civil union, despite its obsolescence in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in favor of marriage equality. Grossman provides a brief history of the civil union and its demise and critiques the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the trial court in this case.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda questions the practice of both the Hillary Clinton Campaign and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to employ unpaid interns. Rotunda argues that in both instances, the interns do not receive the type of training or education from the experience that is required in order for an unpaid internship not to violate federal labor laws.

Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses the claim that IQ scores of minorities should be upwardly adjusted for the purpose of eligibility for the death penalty. Drawing upon an article on the issue by Robert Sanger, Colb argues that even if the practice of adjusting IQ scores were scientifically supported (which it is not), doing so for death penalty purposes constitutes invidious race discrimination in violation of the federal Constitution.