When the Supreme Court decides that a petition was "improvidently granted," it does not explain its reasoning.
Back in 2011, EPA unveiled this update of a critical public health protection. Unfortunately, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals handed down an extremely controversial divided ruling in August of 2012 that struck down this rule.
As a clergyperson, I'm obviously concerned about people being able to have the freedom to practice their faith. Yet as a woman, I also care about the health and dignity of people who need contraception.
Our foundation of Baptist principles and our Christian call to advocate for justice provide a powerful theological grounding for our unwavering support for a woman's individual freedom to choose whether and how to bear children.
By declining to hear a challenge to New York State's "Amazon law," the U.S. Supreme Court has now helped pave the way for states and localities to collect more of the roughly $13 billion that they're owed each year in uncollected sales taxes on Internet purchases.
This cluster of cases infamous to liberals might conspire to deal a blow to the ACA and in the same stroke open the door to other odious corporate practices performed in the name of faith. Or maybe not.
There are a number of important issues at play in these cases, but a central one should be this: must the law accommodate those whose religious beliefs lead to conclusions that are scientifically incorrect?
Workers whose freedoms are limited by their employers are serfs, not independent citizens. Allowing companies to limit their workers choices in this way undermines basic freedoms and indeed our democratic system.
This week's decision by the Supreme Court to examine a challenge to President Obama's ACA corporate mandate to provide insurance coverage for contraception, provides a fascinating deep legal issue, once one gets beyond the understandable political cacophony
No corporate entity should be in position to limit women's legal access to care, or to seize a controlling interest over the health care choices of women.
With all eyes on the Supreme Court this week, birth control and its coverage as a preventive benefit for women without a co-pay will once again take center stage in the national conversation.
In celebration of #GivingTuesday, we've been sharing a look at just some of what the League has done to increase political participation and strengthen our democracy -- and our country -- in 2013.
The impact of money in state court elections is not limited to criminal cases. Studies show that -- consciously or unconsciously -- judges tend to rule in favor of the interests of their contributors.
On December 11, 2013, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Lozano v. Alvarez, a case arising under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
Citizens United has cast a black shroud over our nation since it was dumped on the American people by an activist, ideologically driven right-wing majority in the Supreme Court. Since that decision, we have seen a steady erosion of our way of life.