The Plaintiffs in CREW v. Trump Deserve To Have Their Claims Heard

8/14/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Our amicus brief explains why the Justice Department’s jurisdictional arguments miss the mark

Daniel Hemel

University of Chicago Law School

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Second Thoughts About The Supreme Court’s Scheduling The Entry Ban Case

8/2/17  //  Commentary

The Court’s October Calendar Further Underscores That It Never Actually Intends To Resolve The Legality Of The Entry Ban

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

The Self-Pardon Question: What Comes Next?

7/27/17  //  Commentary

By Jeffrey Crouch: Might Congress amend the Constitution to take the self-pardon question off the table permanently?

Take Care

The Government And Grandparents (What's The Big Deal?)

7/15/17  //  Quick Reactions

DOJ rushed to the Supreme Court to ensure that the government wouldn't have to admit grandparents. Its arguments are silly.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Versus Trump: I Want Out!

7/13/17  //  Commentary

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie and Easha discuss the cases against Trump University, the global settlement that was reached, and whether the pending challenge by a lone objector can—or should—alter the result. Listen now!

Easha Anand

San Francisco

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

A Reality Check On Proceedings Related To The Entry Ban Injunctions

7/13/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Some commentators are seizing on court orders in the proceedings related to the scope of the injunction against the entry ban as an indication that courts are rethinking their decisions against the entry ban. That's wrong (with a cautionary note about the federal courts).

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Versus Trump: (Judicial) Independence Day Spectacular!

7/6/17  //  Commentary

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, we celebrate Independence Day with a look at the past, present, and future of judicial independence. Jason and Easha discuss the origins of judicial power, and then talk about what the Trump Administration has done that may undermine the authority of the judiciary—and where that kind of talk might lead us. Listen now!

Easha Anand

San Francisco

The Administration's Travel Ban Guidance

6/29/17  //  Commentary

The administration has again attempted to push the boundaries to see what it can get away with on the travel ban guidance.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Versus Trump: Where There's A Gil... (On Partisan Gerrymandering)

6/29/17  //  Commentary

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, we discuss a lurking issue with opposing Trump in upcoming elections: partisan gerrymandering. Charlie and Easha take a close look at the case of Gil v. Whitford, a case the Supreme Court recently announced it will take up next fall. In Gil, the Supreme Court may boldly announce a new rule that might seriously curb partisan gerrymandering—or the Court may entirely stop courts from being able to hear these cases at all. Listen now!

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

Easha Anand

San Francisco

With Supreme Court Opinions, More Is Not Always More

6/29/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Justice Gorsuch has already written seven separate opinions in his 78-day tenure on the Supreme Court. What should we make of that?

Nancy Leong

Sturm College of Law

Making Sense of the SCOTUS Per Curiam in Arkansas SSM Birth Certificate Case

6/29/17  //  Commentary

The challenged Arkansas law most certainly violated Obergefell's call for equal access to the constellation of benefits that accompany marriage. The per curiam got it right.

Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law School

No, the Chief Justice Did Not Just Embrace Obergefell

6/27/17  //  Commentary

Many commentators have misunderstood the significance of a per curiam ruling by the Supreme Court yesterday.

Joshua Matz

Publisher

Closing the Courthouse Doors: Justice Kennedy’s Very Bad Day

6/22/17  //  Commentary

David Gans discusses Ziglar v. Abassi, a new SCOTUS ruling that makes it very hard for individuals to sue federal officials for trampling on federal constitutional rights

Take Care

The Clarifying Memorandum Is Not A Reason For A Stay

6/21/17  //  Quick Reactions

An analysis of DOJ's latest filing at SCOTUS in the travel ban cases.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

SCOTUS Severely Narrows Civil Rights Suits Against Federal Officers

6/20/17  //  Commentary

Yesterday's SCOTUS ruling in Ziglar v. Abbasi makes it all but impossible for civil rights plaintiffs to sue federal officials for money damages.

Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law School