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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Permalink to Afterbirth: The Supreme Court’s Ruling in Young v. UPS Leaves Many Questions Unanswered
Afterbirth: The Supreme Court’s Ruling in Young v. UPS Leaves Many Questions Unanswered 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.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda critiques the suggestion that President Obama simply disregard the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision if it rules that the Affordable Care Act does not allow the federal government to subsidize federal health exchanges.
UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar comments on the case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding Texas’s rejection of a custom license plate application that included the Confederate flag. Specifically, Amar considers three First Amendment issues raised during the recent oral argument for that case.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman and University of Pittsburg law professor Deborah Brake discuss the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Young v. UPS, in which the Court resolved some issues over the scope of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. In a second column, Grossman and Brake will comment on the implications of the ruling on other aspects of employment discrimination law.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda discusses the statutory interpretation question at issue in the U.S. Supreme Court case King v. Burwell, which could resolve the fate of Obamacare.
U.C. Davis law professor Vikram David Amar comments on the recent oral argument in the Arizona Independent Redistricting case before the U.S. Supreme Court. In particular, he points out the lack of attention to the question of standing and Justice Anthony Kennedy’s overly (and erroneously) simplistic view of U.S. history.
Cornell University professor Michael Dorf discusses last week’s oral arguments in King v. Burwell, the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide the fate of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Dorf contends that there are three distinct arguments through which the government could successfully defend the law if the Court finds the language of the statute unclear.
Sherry Colb, law professor at Cornell University, discusses a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court will decide whether, after completing a routine traffic stop, a police officer may briefly delay the release of the driver to permit a dog to sniff for narcotics.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman describes the path that the issue of same-sex marriage has taken to finally reach the U.S. Supreme Court this term.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf argues that the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to recognize a right to same-sex marriage in a ruling this term and discusses the different theories on which the Court could do so.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Holt v. Hobbs, holding that the Arkansas prison system’s beard-length requirements violate the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
