Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman and University of Pittsburg law professor Deborah Brake comment on a recent lawsuit filed by Leigh Castergine against her former employer, the New York Mets, alleging pregnancy discrimination. Grossman and Brake argue that based on Castergine’s allegations, she is likely to prevail in her case; however, they describe the inconsistent results in many seemingly similar pregnancy discrimination cases across the country.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda comments on the IRS monitoring of religious groups. Rotunda argues that the government agency’s actions run counter to the guarantees of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Guest columnist and University of South Carolina School of Law professor Seth Stoughton discusses the police response in Ferguson, Missouri, and explains ways the situation could have been handled better. Stoughton argues that any confrontation between officers and citizens should be handled with the long-term relationship between the police and the community in mind.
George Washington University law professor and economist Neil Buchanan comments on the minor nationwide debate over reclining one’s seat on an airplane. Buchanan argues that one reporter’s claim that the debate is “an excellent case study for the Coase Theorem” manifests a fundamental (yet common) misunderstanding of that theorem.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf comments on two recent rulings on state bans on same-sex marriage—one by the U.S. District Court for the District of Louisiana upholding that state’s ban and the other by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit striking down bans in Indiana and Wisconsin. Dorf explains how a comparison of these two rulings reveals weaknesses in the case against marriage equality.
University of Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry discusses the crypto-currency Bitcoin and how different authorities have come to different conclusions as to whether it is money.
John Dean, former counsel to the president, comments on a recent Newsweek story by David Cay Johnston highlighting the noted and untruthful biographer C. David Heymann. Dean explains how the dysfunctional body of First Amendment law has allowed Heymann to get away with publishing many lies and false information about a handful of public figures.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton describes how granting accommodations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is a slippery slope. Hamilton draws upon a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for illustration.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb considers whether a person should have a right to self-representation in criminal proceedings. Colb describes a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on the issue and discusses why such a right might be valuable.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman chronicles the story of the late Anna Nicole Smith, who sought to share in the estate of her husband J. Howard Marshall II but after twenty years of litigation ended up with nothing.
UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar discusses a recent decision by the California Supreme Court temporarily blocking an “advisory” measure from appearing on the ballot. Focusing on the opinion by Justice Goodwin Liu, Amar describes three main weaknesses in the rationale behind disallowing the legislature from placing the advisory question (or any advisory question) on the ballot.
George Washington University law professor and economist Neil Buchanan explains why cash payments to college athletes does not solve the problems plaguing college athletics.
In light of recent events in Ferguson, Missouri, Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf weighs the benefits and costs of equipping police officers with wearable cameras to record encounters with citizens. Dorf concludes that while there are some risks inherent in the practice, it would be a good first step toward reducing the frequency of tragedies resulting from police–citizen confrontations.
Guest columnist and professor of law and government at Cornell University, Joseph Margulies discusses the use of the term “torture” in American media and the public sphere. Margulies describes the change in language after 9/11 and explains the significance of the word’s return to the public’s vocabulary.
John Dean, former counsel to the president, comments on the recent indictment of Texas Governor Rick Perry. Dean cautions against falling for Perry’s and even some Democrats’ quick dismissal of the indictment as politically motivated and lacking sufficient basis. Dean argues that only Perry, not his special prosecutor, may have abused his power.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton discusses an archaic Orthodox Jewish practice that persists despite putting infants at risk of death or permanent injury. Hamilton describes a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit holding that strict scrutiny applies to the New York City regulation requiring that rabbis receive informed consent from an infant’s parents before performing the dangerous ritual. Hamilton explains why, in her view, the Second Circuit erred in reaching that decision, and moreover, why current criminal laws should be used to protect children from being exposed to the risk.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman comments on a recent decision by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire recognizing that both women who raised a child (while they were in a relationship together) are legal parents, despite that only one is the biological mother. Grossman describes how that decision and others like it indicate an evolving understanding of parentage and how families are created.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses a recent decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sustaining an as-applied constitutional challenge to a Mississippi law requiring “admitting privileges” for physicians who provide abortions. Colb explains the panel majority’s creative, albeit convincing, reasoning and critically analyzes the dissenting opinion.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda discusses on the lawsuit against President Obama and explains the issue of judicial standing to sue the President for exceeding his constitutional authority. Rotunda points to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Windsor, the case in which the Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, as supporting standing for the new case against the President.
UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the claim that the University of California is admitting out-of-state and international students to the exclusion of California students. Amar describes some of the factual misunderstandings leading to this criticism and explains why the University’s present solution actually represents a balancing act that benefits California students.