An appeal challenging Idaho’s “anti ‘patent troll’” law on constitutional grounds is new ground for the Federal Circuit, says Prof. Paul Gugliuzza. Read More

Prof. Jules Epstein takes a look at how the rules of evidence shaped the outcome in Carroll v. Trump. Read More

Immigrants seeking political asylum must navigate a system under severe strain, says Assoc. Dean Ramji-Nogales, who notes the lack of political will to supply what the system needs to function. Read More

As SCOTUS considers renewed challenges to affirmative action, Assoc. Dean Donald Harris and Prof. Zamir Ben-Dan join Prof. Timothy Welbeck of the Center for Anti-racism Research in a look at its past and possible futures. Read More

The Supreme Court appears poised to gut affirmative action. Assoc. Dean Donald Harris and Prof. Zamir Ben-Dan discuss the policy’s history, why it remains important, and what will likely happen without it in this explainer for Capital B. Read More

Legislators comparing a restrictive North Carolina abortion bill to European policies are ignoring important context, says Beck Chair Patty Skuster, like public health care, social services, parental leave, and child care. Read More

Assoc. Dean Donald Harris offers his analysis of Warhol v. Goldsmith in this Bloomberg Law op-ed. Read More

Litigation between judges on the Federal Circuit bench not only raises significant issues, it threatens to leave “wounds” that will “take a long time to heal, if they ever do,” says Prof. Paul Gugliuzza. Read More

With all eyes on a Texas order limiting FDA authority over abortion pills, Dean Rebouche discusses two cases making the opposite claim – that FDA regulations preempt conflicting state laws. Read More

Prof. Jules Epstein joins criticism of an evidentiary standard that requires judges to evaluate scientific testimony: “A courtroom is a really lousy place to decide science.” Read More