Deniz Ariturk, William E. Crozier, and Brandon L. Garrett survey the transformation wrought by virtual court proceedings.
Pamela Metzger and Gregory Guggenmos show how rural communities have long struggled with the distance, scale, and scarcity that the pandemic has now brought to more populous places.
Barry Friedman and Robin Tholin argue that restraining the pandemic will require judicious application of government power.
Jennifer Oliva examines how the pandemic has disrupted access to opioid treatment—and for some more than others.
Why do people confess to crimes they didn't commit? Host Taiyee Chien and guest Professor Richard A. Leo (U. San Francisco Law) explore this difficult and persistent psychological phenomenon—and how the law can address it going forward.
What can a debate between two political adversaries in October 1996 teach us about the affirmative-action debate today? Matthew Reade explains.
Coleman Hughes frames the affirmative-action debate as a contest between three positions: the pro-equality position, the pro-equity position, and the middle ground between them.
Richard Sander asks and answers fifteen questions about California's antidiscrimination provisions and their proposed repeal.
Girardeau Spann hopes that ongoing protests against racial injustice across the United States reflect an emerging consensus around the pro-equity conception of affirmative action—a consensus that may prompt the Supreme Court to embrace the view that the Constitution requires efforts to "eradicat[e] racially disparate impact."
Jonathan Feingold criticizes the Supreme Court's "preference" for "class-not-race" affirmative action as "intersectional blindness"—a failure to recognize that hardship may attach simultaneously to many different facets of a person's identity.