UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar addresses some initial criticism of discrimination lawsuits filed by Asian groups and individuals against Harvard and the University of North Carolina for alleged unfair treatment in admissions. Without predicting where the litigations will ultimately lead, Amar identifies and debunks three flawed arguments against the lawsuits.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, released earlier this week, in Kerry v. Din, in which the Court rejected a claim that a U.S. citizen was entitled to a detailed explanation of why the government would not allow her husband a visa to enter the country.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies argues against the idea of a nationwide crime wave and warns of its dangers.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton describes how the Josh Duggar and Dennis Hastert cases highlight the need to reform criminal and civil statutes of limitations for victims of childhood sexual abuse.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses the potential downsides of the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding earlier this year in Heien v. North Carolina, in which the Court held that a police officer could, consistent with the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures, stop a driver for a behavior that the officer mistakenly but reasonably believes is illegal.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda describes, both directly and by analogy, the ways in which federal, state, and local governments are attempting to weaken religion.
For the fifty-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses the role of Griswold and its influence on constitutional jurisprudence.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil Buchanan dissects former Florida governor Jeb Bush's statements regarding raising the age of retirement and Social Security.
UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar describes some important takeaway points from two cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this week—Elonis v. United States and EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Taylor v. Barkes, which illustrates the current breadth of the doctrine of qualified immunity.
Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies describes how meaningful police reform requires starting at the top and treating the bottom as a social, rather than criminal, problem.
Former counsel to the president John W. Dean discusses David A. Hamburg's new autobiography, A Model of Prevention: Life Lesson.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton discusses the impact of child sex abuse within the context of the family in light of recent news involving the Duggar family.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil Buchanan analyzes the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne, a case dealing with the limitations on states’ tax systems implied by the dormant Commerce Clause.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman describes how, despite the many changes in marriage recognition laws across the country, we are seeing a return to marital status as the primary consideration in parentage laws.
UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar discusses a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that has received little attention despite its significance—Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar. In that case, a 5-4 majority of the Court upheld a Florida law that forbids candidates running in contested elections for judicial office from personally soliciting campaign contributions. Amar argues that the ruling provides important insights about First Amendment doctrine and also about the membership of the Roberts Court.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil Buchanan describes how the paranoid style, first ascribed to politics by Richard J. Hofstadter in 1964, fits the current state of political affairs in the United States.
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.
