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

Michigan Law School

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

That Bible Parable About The Plague of Tort Attorneys Who Sued The Border Patrol, ICE Officers, and DHS Bureaucrats

6/19/18  //  Commentary

Calling all the ambulance chasers to address this administration's mistreatment of migrants.

Kari Hong

Boston College Law School

Preliminary Thoughts on the Summary Judgment Motions in the Harvard Affirmative Action Lawsuit

6/18/18  //  In-Depth Analysis

The plaintiff is attempting to link two practices that need not be coupled. One is discrimination against Asian Americans. The other is affirmative action.

Nancy Leong

Sturm College of Law

Masterpiece Cakeshop and Protecting Both Sides

6/15/18  //  In-Depth Analysis

By Thomas C. Berg & Douglas Laycock: The classic American response to deep conflicts like that between gay rights and traditional religious faith is to protect the liberty of both sides

Take Care

Originalist Critiques of Anti-Originalism: Still Don’t Know About History

6/14/18  //  In-Depth Analysis

By Saul Cornell: Although originalists invoke the authority of history, their method is profoundly ahistorical.

Take Care

What About the Free Speech Clause Issue in Masterpiece?

6/13/18  //  Commentary

Robert Post of Yale Law considers the status of free speech objections to serving same-sex couples in light of the Court's opinion.

Robert Post

Yale Law School

Smith Lives: The Politics of Free Exercise

6/12/18  //  Commentary

Will SCOTUS minimize its view of religious animus as applied to Muslims, despite having just magnified it as applied to conservative Christians?

Richard C. Schragger

UVA School of Law