Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda calls attention to the increasing problem of false claims of hate crimes—whether based on race or sexual orientation—and suggests that rather than embrace a mob mentality, we neither jump to conclusions of guilt nor accuse claimants of lying.

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar examines California’s Proposition 49—which seeks the voters’ approval for the California legislature to ratify an amendment to the federal Constitution to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC—in order to shine light on what might be required to overturn the decision on a federal level. Amar argues that Proposition 49 highlights just how difficult it would be to craft a workable constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

In light of Donald Trump’s recent comments about his anatomical endowment, Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the role of virility—and perceived virility—among prior American presidents and other world leaders of history. Dorf points out that while some studies suggest popular perception of one male candidate as “more manly” than another might give him an edge up, analysis shows that result cannot necessarily be extrapolated to predict male versus female elections.

Guest columnists Igor De Lazari, Antonio Sepulveda, and Henrique Rangel comment on a recent ruling by the Brazilian Supreme Court that criminal sentences may be enforced after a challengeable appellate court decision—a ruling the authors argue departs from the clear meaning of article 5, section LVII of the Brazilian Constitution. De Lazari, Sepulveda, and Rangel suggest that the ruling was based on strategic motivations by the justices, rather than purely on interpretations of the law.

Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies comments on the current plight of the Republican party and the role of Donald Trump in that trajectory. Margulies focuses on the delusions that bedevil the GOP and points to the symbols in which the party refuses to believe and on which it simultaneously depends.

Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton discusses the recently released report on abuse in the Altoona-Johnstown Catholic Diocese in Pennsylvania. Hamilton argues that with the motion picture Spotlight having received the Oscar for Best Motion Picture, legislators in Pennsylvania and elsewhere should have even greater motivation to reform civil and criminal statutes of limitations with respect to victims of child sex abuse.

Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb considers the perspectives of both sides of the controversy over a relatively new California law requiring licensed pregnancy centers to prominently post a notice about the availability of free or low-cost abortion, contraception, and prenatal care. Colb offers a compelling narrative to illustrate each perspective, ultimately concluding that while she personally agrees with one side neither is “right” in a moral sense.

Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman comments on a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in which the court affirmed a jury verdict in favor of a sexual harassment plaintiff. Grossman describes the facts leading up to the case and explains why the jury and the appellate court came to the correct conclusion as a matter of fact and law.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda describes how freedom—specifically freedom of speech—was recognized as important as far back as ancient Athens, and how it remains important in the United States today, not only for its inherent value but also in setting an example for the rest of the world to use. Rotunda argues that when the United States restricts speech, other countries will use our example to justify their own repression.

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar describes some of the risks Senate Republicans will face if they refuse to process any Supreme Court nominee that President Obama sends them, as they have claimed they would. Among these risks, Amar argues, are the possibility that a President Hillary Clinton might appoint Obama to the Supreme Court, that the Democrats could take over the Senate and approve a nominee that a Republican-controlled Senate would not have approved, or even that Justices Breyer and Ginsburg could retire under a Democrat-controlled Senate, giving President Obama three places on the Court to fill with liberal justices.

George Washington University law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan continues his series of columns evaluating presidential candidates’ claims of being moderate by looking at Ohio governor John Kasich. Buchanan cautions that although as governor Kasich accepted a Medicaid expansion for Ohio and acknowledges climate change, his actions and words with respect to issues such as abortion, the Affordable Care Act, and the federal budget—among others—reflect extreme conservative views, not moderate ones.

Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf explains why Republicans’ claims that President Obama lacks democratic legitimacy in appointing a successor to the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Dorf points out that the reasons offered thus far for refusing to confirm an Obama nominee seem to imply that originalism/formalism can be validated or invalidated by popular approval, even absent a constitutional amendment.

Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton explains why the pace of new state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts is slower in 2016 than in previous years. Hamilton points out that to pass these bills, legislators have to not only advocate for discrimination, but also for child endangerment—hard policies to sell.

Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies comments on Donald Trump’s recent declaration that not only does he support torture, but that if he becomes president, he would utilize it more, regardless of whether it “works.” Margulies explores these statements as well as the identity of those who support him and his views.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda reflects on the life and accomplishments of his friend the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Rotunda responds to some of the criticism that surfaced after Scalia’s death and recounts some of his most memorable opinions.

In honor of the recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton discusses the Court’s decision in Employment Div. v. Smith, in which Justice Scalia wrote for the majority holding that a law is constitutional under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment if it is facially neutral and generally applied. Hamilton lauds the decision as striking the right balance between liberty and harm, and between religious diversity and religious tyranny.

Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit holding that when police are outside the threshold of a home arresting a suspect who is inside the threshold, it is a “home arrest” requiring a warrant. Colb explains why the decision is significant in protecting the home as a space where a person can feel the highest degree of privacy and comfort, free from unreasonable government intrusions.

Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses the effect that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Young v. United Parcel Service has had on cases arising under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), as well as the limitations of that decision. Grossman argues that while the decision helped give effect to the intended purpose of the PDA, it did not and could not expand the scope of the statute, which is what is now needed to adequately protect pregnant workers.

Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies comments on the likely political and legal consequences of the recent passing of Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Margulies predicts that, due to the ongoing presidential campaign, anyone President Obama nominates to fill the vacancy might become both a partisan tool in presidential politics and also a symbol for the future of America.

Vikram David Amar—dean and law professor at the University of Illinois College of Law—comments on a summary reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court of a decision by the Idaho Supreme Court. While Amar agrees with the Court that the Idaho court erred in reaching its decision, but he argues that the Idaho jurists were not guilty of the particular stupidity or defiance the Supreme Court imputed to them.