Our AI Future – Sexbots, Toilet Drones, and Robocops?
Episode 316 of the Cyberlaw Podcast
Does the text of Title VII prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status?
We write to persuade, but how do we overcome the reader's memory constraints?
If Washington’s conduct helps us understand the meaning of “emoluments,” it should also help us understand the scope of the Foreign Emoluments Clause.
This is the Washington state suit alleging that Fox News had distributed false information about coronavirus.
Thank you to Judges Costa and Willett and Justice Guzman. Congratulations to Curtis Herbert and Hayat Muse of Minnesota!
An interesting take from an expert on race and medicine.
Botanical accuracy, puppycide, and accusations of impropriety.
Our new paper on circuit court judges’ citation practices produces surprising results.
Are they “subordinate state officers”? Do they perform a “federal function”? Do they hold a “Public Trust under the United States”?
The book and mini-series imagine Pres. Charles Linbergh dispersing Jews to the hinterlands, but FDR was the one who actually favored that.
Is there statutory jurisdiction in California v. Texas?
On the possible risks of contagion, and why Evangelicals sue.
Justice Breyer and Gorsuch were annoyed by this "manufactured litigation."
What about Ableman v. Booth (1858)?
How would Universities actually take steps to prevent the spread of COVID-19?
I hope the Supreme Court takes these recommendations seriously.
in a hypothetical question posed by Justice Thomas.
A guest post from Professor James Phillips
The first major affirmative action case went down in history as a case about "reverse discrimination" favoring blacks, but the underlying facts were more complicated.
Douglas Letter's refusal to provide a limiting principle may have been deliberate.
So held a federal district court in Kentucky, in an epidemic-related lawsuit.
No, such individuals are pledged to violate university policy, civil rights laws, and academic freedom.
It's Episode 315 of the Cyberlaw Podcast.
Fun fact about McGirt v. Oklahoma, where Oklahoma is arguing against the claim that Indian tribes had maintained jurisdiction over large chunks of Oklahoma (including Tulsa).
How will the Supreme Court handle oral arguments in the future? I propose a ticket lottery.
I will be talking about the Constitution and the Coronavirus over Zoom for the WIlliam F. Buckley Program
Adrian Vermeule responds to Josh Hammer. We are watching an important debate unfold before our eyes.
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.