Third Circuit doesn’t resolve standard for forced decryption under the Fifth Amendment; Prof. Geoffrey Stone (Chicago) guest-blogging about ‘Sex and the Constitution’; Short Circuit: A roundup of recent federal court decisions; Law professors in support of Judge Gorsuch (and my thoughts, too); Crime on the virtual street: Disturbing the peace and the Bangladesh problem; Some questions I hope the Senate will ask Judge Gorsuch; Could a victory for property owners in Murr v. Wisconsin hurt property rights in the long run?;
 
The Volokh Conspiracy
 
 
Third Circuit doesn’t resolve standard for forced decryption under the Fifth Amendment
But the court strongly hints that it disagrees with the 11th Circuit's standard.
Prof. Geoffrey Stone (Chicago) guest-blogging about ‘Sex and the Constitution’
Prof. Geoffrey Stone, one of the nation's leading liberal constitutional scholars, will be posting based on his new book, "Sex and the Constitution: Sex, Religion, and Law from America's Origins to the Twenty-First Century."
 
Short Circuit: A roundup of recent federal court decisions
A criminal criminal defense attorney, an appeal for shorter sentences and a missing serial comma.
 
No, there is no way to force Supreme Court nominees to give revealing answers
Supreme Court nominees can always avoid giving revealing answers at their hearings by using two simple techniques: the fluency move and the open-minded move.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
 
Law professors in support of Judge Gorsuch (and my thoughts, too)
Why I did not sign the professors' letter (though I support him).
 
Crime on the virtual street: Disturbing the peace and the Bangladesh problem
What would virtual reality and augmented reality crimes be like?
 
Some questions I hope the Senate will ask Judge Gorsuch
Today is the first day of confirmation hearings for Judge Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court. George Will recently published a thoughtful column with a list of questions he hopes senators might ask Gorsuch at the hearings. Most of Will’s questions are ones I would very much like to hear the answers …
 
Could a victory for property owners in Murr v. Wisconsin hurt property rights in the long run?
Legal scholar Roderick Hills argues that it would. I disagree.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
 
Recommended for you
 
Fact Checker
Count the pinocchios. A weekly review of what's true, false or in-between.
Sign Up »
 
     
 
©2017 The Washington Post, 1301 K St NW, Washington DC 20071