Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that provides a window into how the Roberts Court understands its role with respect to economic regulation.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies describes the abysmal conditions under which Tariq Ba Odah is suffering at Guantanamo, despite being cleared by every national security agency.
Former counsel to the president John W. Dean laments the willingness—even enthusiasm—of Bill Cosby’s legal defense team to engage in ethically questionable tactics with respect to Cosby’s victims, including using the media to defame the victims.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton comments on the latest revelations about Bill Cosby arising out of a deposition from a civil lawsuit from ten years ago. Hamilton explains why there are so many secrets about sexual assault, including short statutes of limitations and sealed admissions in civil cases, and calls for greater transparency and publicity.
UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar comments on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision holding that “legislature”—as used in the Elections Clause of Article I, Section 4, of the Constitution—includes within its definition the people of a state undertaking direct democracy.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman and Stanford University law professor Lawrence Friedman comment on a recent legal challenge—based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision in Obergefell v. Hodges—to state anti-polygamy laws.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda calls for the end of the Export-Import Bank. Rotunda describes the Bank as a symbol of corporate welfare and government waste and highlights some of the ways in which the Bank is a drain on the American economy.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in City of Los Angeles v. Patel, in which the Court held facially unconstitutional a statute requiring hotel operators to record, keep, and disclose upon demand by law enforcement certain information about their guests. Colb argues that the Court’s reliance on Planned Parenthood v. Casey to find the statute unconstitutional reinforces the link between substantive and procedural privacy.
University of Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry discusses a new type of mobile app that maps illness in much the same way other apps map weather patterns and warns of the privacy implications these apps pose.
UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., in which the Court held that Texas could, consistent with the First Amendment, reject a specialty license plate design application due to its prominent use of the Confederate battle flag. Amar argues that the Court’s reasoning might lead to problems in future disputes and offers a different rationale for reaching the same result that would have avoided such problems.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses three possible methods that some states might use to resist implementing the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent same-sex marriage ruling.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton discusses and contrasts the constitutional requirements—and limitations—on clergy and government officials.
Amid nationwide discussions about removing the Confederate battle flag from public display, Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies comments on the role of symbols and the American criminal justice system.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman comments on today’s landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court holding that the federal Constitution does not allow any state to prohibit the celebration or recognition of marriages by same-sex couples.
Attorney and writer David Kemp describes today's landmark holding by the U.S. Supreme Court granting marriage equality in all fifty states. Kemp also provides a recap of the past Verdict columns that have documented marriage equality's path to the Supreme Court since United States v. Windsor was decided in June 2013.
Former counsel to the president John W. Dean continues his dialogue with attorney and author Jim Robenalt to discuss Robenalt’s new book, January 1973: Watergate, Roe v. Wade, Vietnam, and the Month That Changed America Forever. In this second of a two-part series of columns, Robenalt focuses on new information he discovered relating to the history Roe v. Wade decision.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton comments on a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit holding that RFRA does not immunize religious nonprofits from the requirement under the Affordable Care Act that they notify the government of their beliefs in order to be exempt from paying for their employees’ contraception.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil Buchanan shares some good news about the living standards of recent retirees and argues that this news should serve as a reminder that there is a way to allow large numbers of people to go through their working lives, and then to live modest, comfortable retirements.
With the U.S. Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision looming, Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Texas holding that state officials do not have the right to intervene in a same-sex divorce case in that state.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda describes the apparent confusion in many jurisdictions over the phrase “moral turpitude” with respect to whether and when attorneys are subject to discipline. Rotunda points out that while many states have adopted the model rules (which, in their current form reject the prohibition against “illegal conduct involving moral turpitude”), these states’ courts still rely on the vague standard when applying the rules.
