Hofstra University law professor Joanna L. Grossman and Duke law professor Katharine T. Bartlett explain why a high school policy prescribing one color of robes for boys and another color for girls violates both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX. Grossman and Bartlett describe how this controversy could be easily resolved, as other schools have resolved other similar controversies.

Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman comments on a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit holding that a school district cannot bar a transgender boy from using the boys’ restroom. Grossman explains the reasoning behind the appellate court’s decision and calls into question the rhetoric that single-sex bathrooms are somehow “sacred”—in light of the many scandals that take place in these places.

Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton comments on a recent development in protections for child sex abuse victims’ access to justice: a letter signed by 62 Jewish rabbis and leaders calling for New York to pass the Child Victims Act, which would create access to justice for child sex abuse victims by eliminating and reviving expired statutes of limitations.

Igor De Lazari, Antonio Sepulveda, and Carlos Bolonha discuss a recent decision by the Brazilian Supreme Court affecting presidential impeachment procedures. The authors point out that the United States and Brazil have similar constitutional origins of impeachment proceedings but that the two countries diverge in interpreting and applying those provisions.

Chapman University Law professor Ronald Rotunda comments on the law in a majority of states requiring car manufacturers to sell through dealers. Rotunda argues that Tesla Motors’ direct-to-consumer model is an excellent opportunity for the state and federal courts to invalidate laws such as these that exist only to favor entrenched economic interests.

Vikram David Amar, law professor and dean at Illinois Law, compares and contrasts the presidential impeachment procedures in the United States and Brazil. Amar suggests five ways in which these two large presidential democracies could benefit from more detailed study of the other’s procedures.

Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the recent oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Texas, a case involving a challenge to the Obama Administration’s deferred action immigration policy. Dorf points out that underneath the procedural questions actually before the Court in that case is a crucial unasked question: What is the scope of the president’s prosecutorial discretion not to enforce laws duly enacted by Congress?

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda comments on several instances in which the government is chilling scientific inquiry into the question of global warming. Rotunda argues that the marketplace of ideas, rather than the subpoena power of government, should decide what is true or false.

Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies comments on the reason behind the particular configuration of criminal justice reform that we presently observe. Margulies argues that the pattern can be explained by the group-position thesis, which posits that racial attitudes are determined substantially by competition and conflict among racial and ethnic groups over resources, power, and status in society.

Neil H. Buchanan, a law professor and economist at George Washington University, praises a bill proposed by Senator Elizabeth Warren that would simplify the filing of taxes. Buchanan explains why filing should be much simpler than it is and also why efforts to simplify the process have, to date, failed.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda comments on the prevalence of alcoholism among attorneys as compared to those in other professions. Rotunda urges lawyers with alcohol addiction problems and those who know such people to seek help from programs such as Lawyer Assistance Programs, which are available in nearly all U.S. jurisdictions.

Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton examines the position Bucks County, Pennsylvania, District Attorney David Heckler has taken with respect to child sex abuse and sex assault victims. Hamilton points out that Heckler does not seem to truly support the protection of children, based on his role in the misleading statements about SOL in the Task Force Report, the delay in release of a grand jury report that supports SOL reform, and the failure to prosecute a Catholic priest accused of sexual abuse.

University of Illinois dean and law professor Vikram David Amar explains how voters’ hands are tied when it comes to electing a vice president. Amar calls into question this widespread practice and considers whether we might improve the democratic process by changing it.

Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf comments on a recent unusual order by the U.S. Supreme Court asking for supplemental briefing from the parties to the latest religious challenge to Obamacare. In contrast with other commentators who have described the order as “puzzling” or “baffling,” Dorf explains how the Court’s order resembles something federal district courts do on a routine basis: facilitate settlement of the dispute.

Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies describes the changes in the use of solitary confinement in Colorado—known there as administrative segregation. Margulies relates accounts of both inmates and prison officials.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda comments on the practice of judges requiring lawyers to donate to charities. Rotunda argues that this practice violates the code of judicial conduct for federal judges.

Vikram David Amar, law professor and dean at Illinois Law, and Michael Schaps, a California civil litigation attorney, critique a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considering whether and when a government physician can take into account a patient’s race. Amar and Schaps argue that the court’s analysis is internally consistent and legally flawed, as well.

In this first of a two-part series of columns, Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies begins to explain why criminal justice reform is happening. Margulies articulates three propositions toward which it is moving: (1) vulnerable populations should not be treated like “ordinary criminals”; (2) offenders deserve an opportunity to redeem themselves; and (3) the police should be monitored, but not closely regulated.

Former counsel to the president John W. Dean discusses the defamation action brought by Boston College public affairs director Jack Dunn over his portrayal in the Academy Award winning film “Spotlight.” Dean expresses surprise that the Academy would award the honor of Best Picture to a film that twisted facts for dramatic gain at the expense of at least one person’s reputation and suggests that the Academy should consult fact checkers as part of its film evaluation process.

Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman comments on a recent per curiam opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court in which it instructed the Alabama Supreme Court to obey the U.S. Constitution and give full effect to a lesbian couple’s adoption decree from Georgia. Grossman describes the facts leading up to the case and explains why the High Court ruled firmly as it did, and why the Alabama court was incorrect.