Evenwel represents a valuable opportunity for the Court to not only clarify its case law concerning reapportionment but also affirm a vital principle central to our law: the Constitution protects citizens against arbitrary action by government in every field.
The Ohio ballot measure's victory is a big step in the right direction. It shows the citizens are in favor of fairness over partisanship. Hopefully, in a future election, a successful ballot measure will apply the same system to the U.S. House district lines as well (hopefully, this will happen before 2022).
Last night, voters at opposite ends of the country took a strong step toward reclaiming democracy for ordinary Americans.
As we look towards the very real possibility that the next President of the United States will have an opportunity to nominate several Supreme Court justices, it is critically important to focus attention on a judicial virtue that has been neglected of late: Grit, that is, firmness of mind in the face of adversity.
The always contentious issue of religious freedom appears to be heading back to the Supreme Court. Not that this court can be trusted to make a measured decision, but Lord knows we need someone to restore order and bring clarity to the principle and its application.
After nearly 6 years of fighting, my life has changed again with just one order.
Should Americans have to justify their freedom to the government, or should the government have to justify its restrictions on freedom to Americans? That question lies at the core of an ongoing debate amongst supporters of limited government about role of the courts in enforcing the Constitution.
Unpacking Holmes' three biggest lies in Lochner discloses the weakness of Segall's case against judicial engagement and reveals why his Holmesian approach to judicial review should not be embraced.
The Supreme Court is under attack. The Court is less popular that it has been in decades. Politicians have called for curbing the Court, proposing measures to strip the Court's jurisdiction and subject justices to periodic retention elections.
The most important dimension in the many-sided struggle to blunt the corporate stranglehold on our democracy won't be waged in courtrooms or legislatures. It will be conducted from below, in organized, mass demands for change.
Judge Restrepo's story of immigrant success seems to be on hold for the moment. That's because he's been waiting since November 2014, when President Barack Obama appointed him to serve on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, to be confirmed as an appeals court judge.
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to know that the average ten-year-old is incapable of waiving his Miranda rights on his own. In fact, most brain surgeons can point to hard physical evidence that they can't.
The close divisions on the Court on these and other issues, coupled with the fact that four will be over 80 in the next president's first term, show the importance of the 2016 election on the future of the Court -- and why November 8, 2016 truly will be Judgment Day.
The congressional method has been the only method used to amend the Constitution. Though states over the decades have attempted to amend the Constitution, such efforts have proven unsuccessful.
Within the next 90 days, the California Supreme Court will decide if a referendum should be placed on the November 2016 ballot asking voters whether they want to amend the federal Constitution to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's dreaded Citizens United ruling.
Only days are left before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals can issue a ruling which the Supreme Court can review on President Obama's deferred action initiatives, better known as DAPA and expanded DACA.