In this contribution to a symposium sponsored by the Kansas Law Review, I examine the path from the Iowa Supreme Court's 2009 ruling in Varnum v. Brien (in which the court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage) to the ouster of three of the court's seven justices in Iowa's 2010...

A growing number of constitutional scholars are urging the nation to rethink its commitment to judicial supremacy. Popular constitutionalists argue that the American people, not the courts, hold the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution's many open-ended, values-laden provisions whose...

In both civil and criminal cases today, judges routinely withhold relevant evidence from jurors, fearing that jurors would use it in an impermissible manner. Forcing jurors to take responsibility for a verdict based upon a government-screened pool of evidence stands in sharp contrast to the way...

In an article recently appearing in the Cornell Law Review, Professors Catherine Fisk and Erwin Chemerinsky reject the vision of union-employee relations that the Court recently laid out in Knox v. SEIU Local 1000. For unions as well as corporations and other associations, Fisk and Chemerinsky...

This contribution to the Fordham Law Review's symposium on ethics and evidence relies upon developments in other disciplines to lay the groundwork for a more finely tuned understanding of emotions' place in the courtroom. The ethical uncertainties surrounding lawyers' use of emotional appeals,...

For the past fifteen years, the execution of Roger Coleman has served as perhaps the most infamous illustration of the U.S. Supreme Court's determination to help the states achieve finality in their criminal cases. Convicted of rape and murder in 1982, Coleman steadfastly maintained his...