Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman describes California’s recently passed Fair Pay Act, which promises to help alleviate the equal pay gap where the federal government has fallen short. Grossman explains the key findings by the California legislature and the new law changes the landscape for female workers in that state.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda discusses a report drafted by the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers finding that state regulation of lawyer advertising involves far more rules and complexity than is necessary. Rotunda points out that in light of the purpose of such rules, the report recommends states that have a single rule that prohibits false and misleading communications about a lawyer or the lawyer’s services.
Vikram David Amar, law professor and dean of the University of Illinois College of Law, identifies four key issues to watch in the Supreme Court’s 2015-2015 Term. As Amar discusses here, these issues center around: (1) public labor unions, (2) affirmative action, (3) abortion rights, and (4) the death penalty.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan describes how Donald Trump’s comments about taxes and the national debt reveal that he is hardly any different from the other Republican candidates. Buchanan argues that, in fact, Trump is in line with mainstream Republican with respect to his views on taxes.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses the #ShoutYourAbortion movement intended to destigmatize abortion. Dorf describes how people “coming out” as being gay or lesbian helped destigmatize sexual orientation, and how coming out as having a disability or disease has helped destigmatize those statuses, as well. Dorf cautions that while the #ShoutYourAbortion movement could resemble these other movements, it may also be different in some important ways.
Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies discusses the inviolable right of human dignity and its essential role as a condition of criminal justice.
Former counsel to the president John W. Dean describes congressional Republicans’ continued war on women, this time as manifested in their treatment of Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton comments on the recent visit by Pope Francis to Philadelphia on the ten-year anniversary of the release of the landmark Grand Jury Report on Sexual Abuse in the Philadelphia Archdiocese. Hamilton argues that now is the time for state legislators to eliminate statutes of limitations for civil sex abuse suits and revive those claims that have expired due to short statutes of limitations.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses a recent decision by a New Jersey appellate court that she argues illustrates a pattern of courts erroneously failing to see the illegal and harmful stereotyping embodied in sex-specific dress codes.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda comments on the first of a wave of litigation sparked by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Rotunda points out that in some cases, lower courts handling these cases have not adequately discussed or distinguished the relevant cases.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses the sexism Donald Trump displayed during the night of the second Republican presidential debate. Colb points out that Trump’s words reveal his hateful and exploitative attitude toward women and is hopeful that people are prepared to vote accordingly.
University of Illinois law professor and dean Vikram David Amar comments on a recent decision by a federal district court in Arizona addressing a challenge to two parts of Arizona’s SB 1070 statute, which attempts to deal with immigration stresses in that state. Amar argues that the court’s reasoning on both claims was confused and unpersuasive and that the results should have been inverted. That is, Amar suggests that the court should have upheld the equal protection challenge to the “Show Me Your Papers” provision and rejected the First Amendment challenge to the Day Laborer provisions.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses the second GOP presidential debate and the candidates' varied, often concerning, interpretations of the U.S. Constitution.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies offers an overview of our current criminal justice system and proposes a philosophy essential for the implementation of its imperative transformation, improvement, and legitimacy.
Author and former counsel to the president John W. Dean discusses the second GOP presidential candidate debate of September 16, 2015—a major political event of the 2016 presidential election cycle.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamliton comments on the quandary of at-risk children in religious groups like the ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities, and cautions against government and political rhetoric that exalts and protects such lifestyles.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses an Ohio bill currently under consideration that would ban abortions motivated by the presentation of Down syndrome by an embryo or fetus. Colb argues that a woman’s right to make decisions over her bodily integrity includes the right to make a decision on a basis that some or most people might find offensive.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses the evolving landscape of parentage law after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Grossman argues that while Obergefell has opened up some new paths to parentage for same-sex couples, it has also closed off others that had been created as workarounds in a restrictive marriage regime.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda briefly describes the journey of women lawyers in America. Rotunda argues that while the direction has been generally forward, its progress is best described as “two steps forward, one step back.”
University of Illinois law professor and dean Vikram David Amar discusses an upcoming Supreme Court case in which the Court will consider to what extent consumer contracts that require disputes to be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than through formal litigation, are enforceable.
