Penn Law faculty provide analysis on the court’s decision that Trump’s travel restriction fell “squarely” within the president’s authority.
Penn Law faculty comment on President Trump’s ban on transgender individuals in the U.S. military
In an opinion piece by Dorothy Roberts and Jeffrey Vagle, the authors argue that President-Elect Trump’s law and order platform is culturally-coded as well as anti-democratic.
Dean Ruger comments on the divided Supreme Court over Obama’s Immigration plan.
Penn Law faculty members comment to the Supreme Court ruling upholding the Affirmative Action program at the University of Texas.
Penn Law faculty members comment on the Supreme Court ruling in the Texas’ abortion law in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt.
Penn Law faculty members respond to President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.
Penn Law faculty members who specialize in constitutional law respond to the Supreme Court decision on marriage equality.
Prof. Kermit Roosevelt analyzes the possible impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the same sex marriage.
Penn Law asked several of its faculty members to look ahead and predict some of the key legal issues that will be discussed and debated in the upcoming year.
Penn Law’s Criminal Law Research Group, led by Professor Paul H. Robinson, is working with the U.S. military’s Special Operations Command-Pacific (SOCPAC) to determine how foreign criminal law can be used to interdict foreign terrorist fighters.
Hobby Lobby ruling could mean some religious claims get more sympathy than others. “Troubling,” Prof. Roosevelt explains to Salon.
Prof. Skeel analyzes the possible impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Hobby Lobby case, such as the court’s future campaign finance cases.
In this video from Reuters, Prof. Shyam Balganesh explains the landmark Supreme Court ruling against Aereo and its impact on copyright law.
Important court decisions, revelations about NSA spying, and high-profile trials were among the legal events that captured headlines in 2013. Here, Penn Law faculty to weigh in on the year’s top legal developments.
The Court’s majority is surely correct that the forms, and extent, of outright electoral discrimination based on race have changed and lessened in the past half century, but the phenomenon persists
Supreme Court equality decisions tend to move gradually towards recognizing the moral consensus of the American people.
By shifting the case back to the lower courts, the Supreme Court decision in Fisher v. University of Texas has encouraged the constitutional debate on affirmative action to continue among a broader set of institutions around the country.
Penn Law faculty members who specialize in constitutional law respond to the oral arguments at the Supreme Court on the volatile issue of same-sex marriage.
Whether the issue is the legality of drone strikes, impending Supreme Court decisions about affirmative action and same-sex marriage, the anniversary of the landmark decision in Gideon v. Wainright, the impact of documentary filmmaking on the pursuit of justice, or key regulatory decisions by administrative agencies, here developments to watch for in the year ahead.
The re-election of President Barack Obama on Tuesday elicited a broad spectrum of commentary from faculty members of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. A round-up of their insights into how the election was conducted and what it means for health reform, economic recovery, immigration, women’s rights and a host of other issues vital to the country’s future follows.
An issue for the justices to decide is whether to follow or overrule recent precedent, according to University of Pennsylvania Law School Professor Theodore Ruger.
University of Pennsylvania Law School Professors Kermit Roosevelt and Seth Kreimer Tuesday praised a Commonwealth Court judge’s decision to block implementation of Pennsylvania’s controversial Voter ID law.
In the aftermath of the Affordable Care Act decision, we asked Constitutional and health law and policy experts at the University of Pennsylvania Law School to share their insights about what the decision portends for the scope of federal power to meet economic and social problems and the future of the nation’s health care system.