Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on Tim Draper’s proposal to divide California into three separate state. Amar describes what the proposal would do and provides three levels of hurdles that will (and Amar argues should) make the proposal a difficult sell, particularly among rational Democrats, who make up the majority of California voters.
Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on an exchange during the confirmation hearing of Wendy Vitter, whom President Trump has nominated for a federal district court judgeship, in which Vitter declined to answer whether she thought Brown v. Board of Education was rightly decided. Dorf points out that Vitter’s refusal to answer that question may have been an attempt to avoid further scrutiny about her views about abortion but also served to inadvertently acknowledge what conservatives routinely deny—that a judge’s “personal, religious, and political” views necessarily interact with the legal materials.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies expands upon a prior column in which he argued that all of President Donald Trump’s attacks thus far on Special Counsel Mueller are not actually a threat to the rule of law. Margulies considers two other scenarios: delegating the task of firing the special counsel, which Margulies argues does threaten the rule of law, and pardoning those convicted by the special counsel, which he argues does not.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan considers gerrymandering, particularly whether there are legal or constitutional limits on how far one party can go to marginalize and potentially destroy the other party. Buchanan explains how gerrymandering works and why it is such a troubling phenomenon in a democracy.
SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman considers whether New York’s all-female private social club, The Wing, violates that state’s public accommodations law. Grossman reviews the relevant case law and concludes that The Wing will likely have difficulty arguing that should be exempt from the public accommodations law under First Amendment or public policy grounds.
Cornell University law professor Sherry F. Colb analyzes some of the assumptions implicit in a fur ban, as San Francisco recently implemented, including the view that fur is a luxury while leather is a necessity and the view that wild animals have a right to live while farm animals do not. Colb explains why these distinctions are nonsensical and calls upon proponents of the fur ban to let people know that there is plenty of vegan food in San Francisco and elsewhere, and that no one needs to spend another moment participating in cruelty to animals.
Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar reflects on the ABA’s process for reaccreditation of American law schools and describes some of the positive and negative aspects of that process. Amar explains that during the reaccreditation site visits, schools have the opportunity to learn from others similarly situated and to showcase their own progress, but there are still some challenges such as consistent application of ABA standards and the attempt to treat of all schools, however different they might be, the same for accreditation purposes.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why regressive taxes make Republicans “reverse Robin Hoods” by focusing on the core disagreement between those Republicans and everyone else about the ethics of taxation. Buchanan points out that the Republicans’ argument boils down to the tautology that rich people deserve what they have because they have it.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies describes how President Donald Trump’s rhetoric on criminal justice has not actually impacted (positively or negatively) the state of criminal justice reform across the country. Margulies describes the modest progress but cautions that the most significant shifts may be taking place at a level that is not yet detectable.
Cornell University law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on the recent incident involving a French bulldog puppy dying in-flight when the flight attendant allegedly insisted that the carrier containing the dog be put in the overhead bin. Colb provides one possible explanation for the incident in terms of human behavior as observed in the famous Milgram experiment, in which subjects obeyed directions from an authority figure to administer increasingly strong electric shocks to another person despite experiencing moral distress at doing so.
SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments on the recent oral argument in NIFLA v. Becerra, in which so-called Crisis Pregnancy Centers challenge California’s Reproductive FACT Act as violating their First Amendment right to free speech by requiring posted information about medical licensure and abortion. Grossman points out that Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor seemed to believe that if California’s FACT Act violates the First Amendment, then so too would laws in other states requiring that doctors engage in anti-abortion (or abortion-deterrent) speech.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan describes two reasons Republicans’ regressive tax cuts are unpopular: people are no longer falling for Republicans’ claims that the tax cuts help the middle class, and people are increasingly aware that the tax cuts increase, rather than reduce, economic inequality.
Guest columnist Barry Winograd—an arbitrator and mediator, and lecturer at Berkeley Law—concludes his two-part series of columns on the conflict between President Donald Trump and Stephanie Clifford, the adult film actress known as Stormy Daniels. Winograd argues that both parties would benefit from settling their claims against the other so they can minimize disruption to their personal and professional futures.
In this second of a two-part series of columns, Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar evaluates the major constitutional and statutory voting rights claims asserted in the federal challenge to Texas’s use of the so-called Winner-Take-All approach to selecting the state’s representatives to the Electoral College. Amar explains why he finds both types of arguments set forth in the complaint largely unpersuasive.
Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf considers whether, in protest of the Supreme Court’s recognition of the constitutional right to same-sex marriage, states can “get out of the marriage business” altogether. Dorf explains that abolishing marriage for everyone likely poses no equal protection issues, and points out some interesting and unique characteristics about marriage as a fundamental right.
Illinois Law professor Lesley Wexler considers whether institutions such as the Nobel Committee should revoke awards for illegal or immoral behavior by its recipients. Wexler points out that empirical evidence suggests that revocation can sometimes lead to crackdowns or repressions, rather than motivating the recipient to improve their behavior, and thus that revocation should be considered with caution.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies explains why we should withhold judgment about President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the CIA, Gina Haspel. Margulies points out that, notwithstanding what we do know about Haspel’s role in facilitating torture at CIA black sites, there is much information we still do not yet know that could inform our assessment of her. He calls upon both the Left and the Right to reduce knee-jerk reactions and instead seek to make careful assessments based on complete information and facts.
Former White House counsel John W. Dean describes the incredible legacy of fellow Verdict columnist, Professor Ronald D. Rotunda, who passed away unexpectedly earlier this week. Dean explains how he came to know Rotunda—through the Watergate hearings—and Rotunda’s critical role in developing the modern-day ethics rules that govern lawyers (“post-Watergate morality”). A prolific writer, Rotunda is perhaps best known for co-authoring the revered Legal Ethics: The Lawyer’s Deskbook on Professional Responsibility, as well as a highly regarded treatise on constitutional law.
Boston University law professor Tamar Frankel comments on the current situation regarding federal regulation of securities brokers as having fiduciary duties to their clients. Frankel explains the arguments for and against such regulations and describes the possible consequences for retirees, young people, and the brokers themselves if the regulations are imposed.
SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments on a recent decision by a New York trial court finding a man's egregious use of spyware to eavesdrop on his wife's conversations with her lawyer during their ongoing divorce, and his destruction of the evidence of the spying, supported denying him marital assets in the divorce. Grossman describes the very standard for considering whether to consider fault when awarding alimony and argues that the court arrived at the correct conclusion in this extraordinary circumstance.