Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf describes how the dissenting opinions by Justices Scalia and Thomas in Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne are inconsistent with their prior methodologies for interpreting the Constitution in other contexts.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses actual versus perceived cruelty in the administration of capital punishment, as raised recently during oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in Glossip v. Gross.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies argues that the goal of meaningful criminal justice reform should be to hold the offender accountable, repair the community, and make the victim whole.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton reports on the developments thus far in 2015 with respect to child sex abuse victims’ access to justice.
University of Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry discusses a proposal tentatively approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation that would allow airlines to collect consumers’ personal data for the purpose of personalizing fare quotes. Ramasastry cautions that the proposal has significant privacy and discrimination risks and that we need more information, more transparency, and better safeguards before proceeding with it.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses the legal implications of the relatively rare biological phenomenon of heteropaternal twins—that is, twins with different fathers.
UC Davis law professors Vikram David Amar and Alan Brownstein continue their discussion of state religious freedom restoration acts (RFRAs). Amar and Brownstein discuss the original purpose of state RFRAs, the pros and cons of enacting a general religious liberty statute as opposed to granting accommodations on a case-by-case basis, and the best way for states to move forward in light of these considerations.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil Buchanan continues his discussion of the Republican assault on the Internal Revenue Service. Buchanan describes two aspects of a report recently published by the Republican staff of the House Ways & Means Committee that show Republicans are punishing IRS employees who have nothing to do with the supposed problems at the agency. Buchanan then goes on to describe what an honest attempt to reform the IRS would look like.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf considers the intricacies of a question Justice Antonin Scalia posed during last week’s oral argument in the same-sex marriage cases—whether, if the Court finds a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, clergy who will not officiate at same-sex weddings must thereby forfeit the power to officiate at opposite-sex weddings.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses a question Justice Samuel Alito asked during oral argument last week in the same-sex marriage cases—whether non-romantic couples should have the right to marry.
Cornell University visiting law professor Joseph Margulies discusses the tense situation between the police and the community in Baltimore and argues that meaningful reform is on the horizon.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton discusses the position of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton with respect to contraception.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil Buchanan evaluates a recent report issued by the majority staff on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Buchanan argues that the report illustrates Republicans’ attempts to claim not only that the IRS’s mistakes are entirely unconnected to its shrinking budget, but also that the IRS is consciously trying to make matters worse.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton assesses the different arguments presented during this week’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the same-sex marriage cases.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses one aspect the same-sex marriage case that the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing today, Obergefell v. Hodges. Specifically, Grossman considers whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to recognize out-of-state marriages in the context of the history of interstate marriage recognition laws.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda warns against the California bill recently introduced in the state senate that would allow physician-assisted suicide. Rotunda cites other jurisdictions in which physician-assisted suicide is permissible in arguing against the bill’s passage.
UC Davis law professors Vikram David Amar and Alan Brownstein discuss state religious freedom restoration acts (RFRAs). In this first of a two-part series of columns, Amar and Brownstein argue that whether a state RFRA should apply in private litigation should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf describes the journey of the issue of same-sex marriage that has led to its reaching the U.S. Supreme Court this Term. Dorf explains what this path says about the relationship between social change and legal change.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman and University of Pittsburg law professor Deborah Brake continue their discussion of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Young v. UPS, in which the Court held that a pregnant UPS driver who was denied a light-duty accommodation that was routinely made available to other employees with similar lifting restrictions should have the opportunity to prove that the employer’s denial was discriminatory.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton describes how the conservative Christian agenda is steadily making its way into law, first through the federal RFRA, and then subsequently in other ways.