The Constitutional Rule Against Bans On Previability Abortions Applies to Mississippi

4/22/19  //  Commentary

We recently filed an amicus brief asking the Fifth Circuit to apply the well settled rule that states may not prohibit women from accessing abortions prior to viability.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Take Care

Relitigating Dunn v. Ray

4/17/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

The Supreme Court has insisted on relitigating and reaffirming its decision in Dunn v. Ray. So let's do that.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Something Is Rotten In States’ Execution Protocols And Capital Litigation at SCOTUS

4/15/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

Some recent cases suggest that, if anything, the Supreme Court should be harder on states in capital litigation proceedings. Instead, the Court has done the opposite.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

The Two Sides of Donald Trump in The @RealDonaldTrump Litigation

3/25/19  //  Commentary

The government’s brief is at war with itself with respect to the state action and government speech doctrines in the @realdonaldtrump litigation.

Kyle Skinner

Harvard Law School

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Two Cheers for the Non-Unitary Executive?

3/18/19  //  Quick Reactions

Current events provide an occasion for the Court to rethink its agreement with the unitary executive theory. In fact, it’s already done so.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

SCOTUS And The Wall

3/4/19  //  Commentary

One of the Supreme Court’s pending cases is potentially relevant to one of the challenges to the President’s emergency declaration.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Might the SCOTUS be Wrong in its Unanimous Ruling that Dead Judges Can't Judge?

3/3/19  //  Commentary

The decision is justifiable as a bright-line rule, but the case was not quite the no-brainer that the justices imagined

Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law School

A Note Of Caution About Timbs v. Indiana

2/25/19  //  Quick Reactions

The concurring opinions in Timbs v. Indiana raise some concerns about how (some of) the Justices would address the Trump administration’s treatment of undocumented minor women.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

The Substance of the Supreme Court’s procedure

2/13/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

Last week’s Supreme Court stay orders say a lot about how the Court views the substance of the underlying constitutional claims in Dunn v. Ray and June Medical Services v. Gee.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Justice Kavanaugh Said No On Roe

2/11/19  //  Quick Reactions

In June Medical Services, Justice Kavanaugh did exactly what reproductive justice advocates said he did on the court of appeals, and warned he would do once he got to the Supreme Court. Are you listening Susan Collins?

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Korematsu And The Entry Ban (Again)

2/4/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

Recently revealed errors in the report that the administration created pursuant to the second entry ban further underscore the parallels between Korematsu v. United States and the entry ban.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Getting To No On Roe: It Continues

1/29/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

Another recent decision from a court of appeals (this time the Fifth Circuit) illustrates how states and courts can undermine women’s right to decide to end their pregnancies without formally overruling the relevant Supreme Court decisions.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Revisiting The Presumption of Regularity

1/28/19  //  Commentary

Subsequent events have made clear that courts were--and are--right to recognize that all is not regular in the executive branch.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Immigration Lies And The Supreme Court

1/23/19  //  Commentary

A recently leaked document highlights the perils of government lawyering on behalf of the Trump administration.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Two Texas Consultants Don’t Have Standing to Take Down Obamacare

12/18/18  //  Commentary

There is no good legal argument for thinking that two guys from Texas have standing to challenge a law that doesn’t require them to do anything.

Nick Bagley

University of Michigan Law School