Reinvigorating Defensive Crouch Liberal Constitutionalism Part 2: Will Clarence Thomas Save Abortion Rights?

7/19/18  //  Commentary

Would Justice Thomas really strike down federal legislation restricting abortion? We may soon find out.

Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law School

The Doomed—And Dangerous—Demand for Refunds from Public Sector Unions

7/19/18  //  Commentary

Sending unions into bankruptcy because they mistakenly trusted the Supreme Court when it stood by Abood in 2012 (and declined to overrule it again in 2014) would be more than a blow to middle class workers; it would be a serious danger to the rule of law.

Aaron Tang

UC Davis School of Law

Arguments About Nationwide Injunctions

7/16/18  //  In-Depth Analysis

By Zachary D. Clopton: The question whether a nationwide injunction should issue is case-specific and policy-inflected.

Take Care

Reinvigorating 'Defensive Crouch Liberal Constitutionalism' Part 1: Originalism and Searches

7/11/18  //  Uncategorized

I want to begin exploring ways in which liberals might try to defend what we value in the coming era of Supreme Court extreme conservatism

Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law School

Elusive Silver Linings & The Deregulatory First Amendment

7/9/18  //  Commentary

Sometimes the oncoming storm is easier to spot than the silver linings.

Abbott v. Perez:  Bad Reading Invites Discriminatory Redistricting

7/6/18  //  In-Depth Analysis

Ironically but thankfully, the result of Justice Alito's deeply mistaken analysis in Abbott v. Perez is an opinion that makes less bad law than it might have.

Daniel P. Tokaji

Ohio State, Moritz College of Law

The Recyclable Sentences of the Deregulatory First Amendment

7/5/18  //  In-Depth Analysis

There are a few recyclable sentences lurking in lower-profile cases that may offer the best guidance to where the Court is heading next

Nikolas Bowie

Harvard Law School

Religious Animus or Reality?

7/2/18  //  Commentary

In a recent case, the Court suggested that calling out an attempt to use religion to justify harming others was evidence of animus. That’s wrong.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Abigail DeHart

Michigan Law School

The Travel Ban and Inter-Branch Conflict

6/26/18  //  Commentary

The real problem is the Trump Administration itself. What feels like damage today is largely the echo of damage that already happened, rather than something new.

Richard Primus

University of Michigan Law School

The Future Of Constitutional Discrimination Law After Hawai’i v. Trump

6/26/18  //  Commentary

The future of discrimination law is secure, in short—and securely shut to minority races, ethnicities, and creeds suffering at the hands of a populist majority.

Aziz Huq

University of Chicago Law School

SCOTUS Crisis Pregnancy Center Case Shows Originalist Justices Are Originalist Except When They're Not

6/26/18  //  Commentary

Let's not kid ourselves. Today's decision in NIFLA is an ideological decision.

Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law School

At SCOTUS, It's All About Taint

6/25/18  //  Commentary

The Supreme Court decided two merits cases today and took one extremely puzzling action via a summary order. The unifying theme I'll identify is taint.

Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law School

President Trump, Your Words Do Matter (And Should Doom Your Muslim Ban)

6/21/18  //  In-Depth Analysis

Sirine Shebaya and Johnathan Smith: Trump has never been bashful about his anti-Muslim animus. And he has invoked that animus in creating policies, in defiance of the Constitution.

Take Care

We’ve Been (Unconstitutionally) Separating Children From Their Immigrant Parents For A While Now

6/20/18  //  In-Depth Analysis

By Carolyn Shapiro & Joanna Martin: Separating parents from their children without regard for the children’s rights and interests is unconstitutional

Take Care

Justice Gorsuch, Kippahs, and False Analogies in Masterpiece Cakeshop

6/19/18  //  In-Depth Analysis

The Court’s newest member embraces a troubling “both sides” argument

Jim Oleske

Lewis & Clark Law School