Illinois Law professor and dean Vikram David Amar describes five unusual aspects of this week’s oral argument in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, in which the Supreme Case is considering the role of affirmative action in university admissions.

University of Illinois College of Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar discusses a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next week—Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. As Amar points out, that case lies at the intersection of many contentious aspects of 21st century American democracy, including dissatisfaction with elected officials, partisan zeal, racial equality, and federal–state relations.

Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses the claim that IQ scores of minorities should be upwardly adjusted for the purpose of eligibility for the death penalty. Drawing upon an article on the issue by Robert Sanger, Colb argues that even if the practice of adjusting IQ scores were scientifically supported (which it is not), doing so for death penalty purposes constitutes invidious race discrimination in violation of the federal Constitution.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda argues for the use of cameras in the U.S. Supreme Court to improve transparency and access for greater numbers people.

Vikram David Amar, law professor and dean at Illinois Law, and Michael Schaps, a California civil litigation attorney, discuss Spokeo v. Robins, in which the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the nature of injury required for a plaintiff to avail herself of the federal court system. Specifically, Amar and Schaps describe the justices’ various perspectives on the issue and the possible origins and significance of these perspectives.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda the lead-up and history of the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision—in which the Court in 1857 held that African Americans could not be American citizens and therefore could not sue in federal court. Rotunda explains how the case progressed through the state and subsequently federal courts, and discusses how the decision affected some of the justices sitting on the Court at the time.

Vikram David Amar, law professor and dean of the University of Illinois College of Law, identifies four key issues to watch in the Supreme Court’s 2015-2015 Term. As Amar discusses here, these issues center around: (1) public labor unions, (2) affirmative action, (3) abortion rights, and (4) the death penalty.

Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda comments on the first of a wave of litigation sparked by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Rotunda points out that in some cases, lower courts handling these cases have not adequately discussed or distinguished the relevant cases.

Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses the evolving landscape of parentage law after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Grossman argues that while Obergefell has opened up some new paths to parentage for same-sex couples, it has also closed off others that had been created as workarounds in a restrictive marriage regime.

University of Illinois law professor and dean Vikram David Amar discusses an upcoming Supreme Court case in which the Court will consider to what extent consumer contracts that require disputes to be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than through formal litigation, are enforceable.

Law professor and dean designate of the University of Illinois College of Law Vikram David Amar offers a few thoughts about how much conservatives lost in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014–15 term.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.