Marci A. Hamilton, a professor and resident senior fellow in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, reacts to the oral argument in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, in which the Supreme Court will decide whether a Colorado baker may refuse to serve a same-sex couple on the basis that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. Hamilton argues that lawyer for the baker, as well as the solicitor general arguing in support of the baker’s position in the case, took the nonsensical position that the cake serves as the baker’s speech in the couple’s private ceremony. Hamilton points out that the cake is actually the couple’s expression to each other and to those present at the ceremony, just as any other product is simply a product imbued only with the meaning intended by its purchaser.
Cornell University law professor Sherry F. Colb explains why it is so difficult for society as a whole to believe women’s accounts of sexual assault and harassment. Colb argues that the first step in developing solutions is for society, and particularly men, to admit that many (if not all) of these claims are true, and once that happens, then one has to either say that such behavior is acceptable or unambiguously condemn the behavior. Assuming that one rightfully condemns the behavior, Colb points out that the next step is to investigate the claims and impose whatever penalties are appropriate.
SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments on a recent decision by a federal court in Texas permanently enjoining the State of Texas from enforcing an unconstitutional anti-abortion law. Grossman provides a brief background of both Texas and the law at issue and explains why the federal court struck it down. Grossman points out that the clear weight of Supreme Court jurisprudence supports the district court’s reasoning and decision.
Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar offers some thoughts on the divisive ongoing conversation about the possibility of the Senate voting to expel Senate candidate Roy Moore from Alabama, if he should win next month’s special election. Amar looks at the history of the practice of Senate expulsion, as well as some of the uncertainties that surround it.
Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf considers how President Trump’s attacks on CNN affect the Justice Department’s efforts to block AT&T’s proposed purchase of Time Warner (by requiring AT&T to sell off Turner Broadcasting, the parent company of CNN, or DirecTV). As Dorf points out, illicit intent can taint policies that without such intent would pass constitutional muster. Dorf explains why AT&T likely can meet the threshold of making a “credible showing of different treatment of similarly situated persons” to advance allegations of selective prosecution based on free speech.
University of Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry comments on the recent release of records known as the Paradise Papers, which reveal the identities of thousands of individuals and corporations using offshore jurisdictions as a tax avoidance strategy. Ramasastry argues that while such actions may in many cases be legal, they are also unethical. She points out that if we focus on the harm of tax avoidance to society, rather than how it is legally defined, then we can see that it contributes to growing inequality and increases tax burdens on resident taxpayers who cannot change their citizenship or move their money.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies observes that the stock market—which tends to disregard even unusual events that within a range of predictability—reflected no surprise at the extraordinary carnage of three mass murders over a period of five weeks. Margulies points out that US stock markets saw steady growth despite Stephen Paddock shooting and killing nearly 60 people and wounding over 500 more in Las Vegas; Sayfullo Saipov killing eight people and seriously injuring over ten others in Manhattan; and Devin Patrick Kelly killing 26 people and injuring 20 more in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Does this truly mean that human destruction on a scale like this has no impact on national life?
Boston University law professor Tamar Frankel pens a fable as a means of providing commentary on law school grades and the debate between pro-regulation approaches and more laissez-faire approaches. Through the voice of a fictional character, Frankel points out that the cost of relying on the market to correct itself is lingering mistrust, which erodes a community's prosperity and undermines its success for a very long time.
Professor and resident senior fellow in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, Marci A. Hamilton calls upon social media giants, particularly Facebook, to act morally and implement safeguards to protect the democratic process, or else be regulated by Congress. Hamilton points out that Facebook has amassed more data about individual people than any other company in the world, and it should shoulder the burden of handling that data responsibly rather than for the pure purpose of profit.
Cornell University law professor Sherry F. Colb considers some pros and cons of legalizing and enforcing gestational surrogacy agreements, as the New York State legislature is currently considering doing. Colb points out that legalizing these agreements would help clean up the patchwork of different surrogacy laws in different states (and thus make the outcome of conflicts more predictable), but she also notes that government endorsement of surrogacy may perpetuate or ignore related issues of equality and born children seeking adoption.
Chapman University, Fowler School of Law, professor Ronald D. Rotunda comments on a recent opinion by the Nebraska bar concluding that lawyers may receive digital currencies such as bitcoin for their services, but only subject to certain conditions. Rotunda provides a brief explanation of bitcoin and explains why the opinion makes no sense. Rotunda calls upon lawyers and state bars to consider the impact of new technology on lawyers, but not to impose special rules on novel tools that are simply a new way of engaging in a traditional endeavor.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan considers the irony of the (hopefully remote) possibility that people might resort to violence to keep President Trump in power. Buchanan explains the “insurrectionist view” of the Second Amendment, which has never been credited by the Supreme Court, but which holds that the founders included the gun-related amendment in the Bill of Rights to prevent the federal government from running roughshod over the people. Buchanan points out the circular logic that under the insurrectionist view, the reason people need guns is to prevent the government from taking their guns.
Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains the federalism doctrines implicated by Attorney General Sessions’ attempt to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. Amar points to lower court decisions that reflect a misunderstanding of the doctrines and calls upon federal courts and their law clerks to better understand and apply not just the nuanced technical details of various specific doctrines, but the overall federalism big picture as well.
Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf describes a principle most famously articulated by Thomas Jefferson, under which there should be a right to avoid providing financial support for causes one strongly opposes. Dorf argues that the Jeffersonian principle has lately run amok. He points out that the government’s argument against allowing a seventeen-year-old undocumented immigrant in federal custody to obtain a privately funded abortion is but one example of the government’s too-broad definition of “facilitation” of acts with which it disagrees. Dorf argues that adoption of such a position would convert every objectionable private exercise of rights into government participation.
Cornell University law professor Joe Margulies comments on the findings of a recent study of police body cameras that body-worn cameras made no statistically significant difference in how police go about their jobs. Margulies points out that the story is not in the absence of a difference, but in people’s surprise to the absence of a difference. Indeed, it is the routine, not the anomalous, that requires reform.
Professor and resident senior fellow in the Fox Leadership Program at the University of Pennsylvania, Marci A. Hamilton praises the #MeToo campaign and explains what more needs to happen to meaningfully address the pervasive issues of sexual assault and abuse against children and adults. Hamilton points to the brave actions by Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney and elaborates on what must change in our society to empower victims and hold those in power accountable.
Cornell University law professor Sherry F. Colb reviews Sital Kalantry’s book Women's Human Rights and Migration: Sex-Selective Abortion Laws in the United States and India. Colb explains how the book taught her a new way to think about an area in which Colb herself already has extensive knowledge. Colb praises Kalantry for taking an empirically supported look at the practice of sex-selection abortions in the United States and elsewhere and for drawing sophisticated conclusions about the proper place for regulation on the basis of that scrutiny.
SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman analogizes a situation in the present United States to the dystopic circumstances of The Handmaid’s Tale. In each, Grossman points out that men have taken upon themselves the right and responsibility to mandate what women may (and must) do during pregnancy, despite what are indisputably their constitutional rights.
Boston University law professor Tamar Frankel describes a model for institutional compliance that provides financial rewards for honesty and compliance with the law. Frankel explains the logistics of such a model and why, for some companies, a bottom-up approach may serve as a superior model than the traditional top-down approach for bringing about desirable results.
Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on the increasingly frequent practice of federal district courts issuing injunctions that extend relief beyond the plaintiffs in the case. Amar describes the problems with this practice and calls upon the US Supreme Court to clarify the doctrine of when nationwide (or global) injunctions by federal district courts are permissible and when they are not.
