Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda discusses how various courts and bar associations treat attorneys’ uses of Facebook and other social networking sites. Rotunda describes some different rules that affect how lawyers may and may not use social networking sites to interact with witnesses, opposing parties, jurors, and clients.
Vikram David Amar, a U.C. Davis law professor, continues his discussion of the significance of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurrence in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.. Amar describes several ways in which Justice Kennedy’s concurrence can be read to limit the breadth of the Court’s holding in that case and suggests that lower courts should pay close attention to his concurring opinion when applying the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in subsequent cases.
George Washington University law professor and economist Neil Buchanan argues against the notion that Social Security will “go broke” before today’s workers retire. Buchanan discusses the origins of the idea—including disinformation campaigns by opponents of Social Security—and explains why the is unfounded, as long as people continue to support the program politically.
Attorney David Kemp discusses the recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit striking down Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage. He compares and contrasts that opinion to an opinion handed down last month by the Tenth Circuit striking down Utah’s equivalent law. Based on the majority and dissenting opinions, Kemp anticipates what might be the key issues if the case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court—an event that seems increasingly likely.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses two federal appeals courts’ recent diverging decisions over Obamacare subsidies. Dorf contrasts the method of statutory interpretation used by the majority of a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which struck down the subsidies, with that of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which upheld them.
John Dean, former counsel to the president, describes former President Richard Nixon’s views of, and influence on, the U.S. Supreme Court. In the process, Dean reveals some tidbits of information about Nixon that he discusses in greater depth in his upcoming book, The Nixon Defense: What He Knew and When He Knew It.
Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton comments on a recent statement by the Wisconsin Insurance Commissioner that purportedly applies the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. to that state’s law. Hamilton critiques the interpretation as misunderstanding the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and calls upon state courts not only to correctly understand the scope of the Hobby Lobby decision, but to reject the Hobby Lobby majority’s reasoning when interpreting their own state’s laws.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., and the nature of the respondents’ claim that IUDs and morning-after pills are abortifacients. Colb analogizes to the distinction between the culpability of direct violence and failure to rescue in order to illustrate that the respondents’ claims are moral rather than factual in basis.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)’s new Enforcement Guidance on pregnancy discrimination. Grossman provides an overview of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, as well as a history of courts’ treatment of pregnancy discrimination claims. She describes how the new Guidance clarifies the Act and serves to help pregnant women begin work, continue working, and return to work throughout the reproductive process.
Ronald Rotunda, a Chapman University law professor, discusses why Congress should eliminate the federal ban on the export of American oil. Rotunda provides a background on the history of the Export Clause of the U.S. Constitution and explains why the original rationale for banning the export of oil no longer supports the continued ban today.
Professor Vikram David Amar, of U.C. Davis School of Law, explains why Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. deserves heightened attention and weight. In this first of a two-part series of columns, Amar provides background on the roles and types of concurring opinions in 5-4 decisions and provides some historical examples of some key concurrences.
Guest columnist Courtney Minick comments on a recent decision by a federal district court judge striking down California’s death penalty. Minick describes the court’s reasoning and considers its possible implications.
George Washington University law professor and economist Neil Buchanan discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., particularly whether it effectively compels all companies to adopt beliefs to increase profits and fulfill their fiduciary duties to their owners. Buchanan predicts that either we will see an increasing number of companies take this route to maximize profits, or we will want to investigate why more companies are not pursuing this attractive route to free market salvation.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf proposes eight different options for fixing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Dorf suggests that open discussion of what was wrong with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. can inform the public and opinion leaders about how to fix RFRA when the opportunity arises.
John W. Dean, former counsel to the president, continues his discussion of the U.S. government’s No-Fly List. In this second of a three-part series of columns, Dean focuses on the constitutional implications of the No-Fly List: deprivation, without due process, of one’s right to travel internationally and one’s reputation interest.
Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton discusses Wheaton College’s request to receive accommodation under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to avoid providing some reproductive coverage for its female employees. Hamilton draws upon her own personal experience and points out that the recent controversies over RFRA in the U.S. Supreme Court have revealed that law’s true nature.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upholding a lower court’s invalidation of a Utah ban on same-sex marriage. Grossman points out that while state same-sex marriage bans have been invalidated in sixteen different rulings across the country, this decision marks the first time a federal appeals court has so ruled.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda comments on recent changes in the legal profession and specifically on the progress of female lawyers. In assessing the changes within the industry, Rotunda calls for deeper inquiry into the reason that female attorneys receive lower compensation within their profession.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil Buchanan explains why large numbers of people continue to believe erroneously that tax cuts result in greater tax revenues. Buchanan argues that the only real-life examples that seem to support the notion are cherry-picked and anecdotal evidence. He concludes that the claim that tax cuts are self-financing is only barely plausible as a matter of logic, and it has been disproven over and over again by both conservative and liberal economists alike.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf comments on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning, in which the Court unanimously invalidated President Obama’s 2012 appointment of three members of the National Labor Relations Board. Dorf discusses the differences between rationales and implications of the five-Justice majority opinion authored by Justice Breyer and those of the four-Justice concurrence authored by Justice Scalia. Dorf argues that the Court’s rejection of political deadlock as a basis for recess appointments could prove to be an important weapon anytime the majority in the Senate is actively hostile to the President.