By splitting the question in this way, the Court appears to be saying that state-to-state marriage recognition could be a stand-alone issue under the Constitution, related to but distinct from marriage licensing and creation.
It doesn't really matter if a super PAC violated the technical definition of coordination. Contributions to super PACs set up by the candidates' allies are effectively the same as contributions to candidates, which is why they are just as likely to be corrupting.
The Supreme Court shouldn't dishonor Dr. King's memory by removing one of the tools we have used to build bridges from the "islands of despair" of racialized poverty and segregation he decried.
If you've been following my historical view of Muhammad Ali, you've learned about his rise to prominence, his religious and political awakening and his repudiation by the boxing establishment and mainstream American culture.
How fitting that just before Martin Luther King Jr. weekend our Supreme Court justices agreed to decide whether our constitution requires all 50 states to recognize same-sex marriages. As Dr. King said the night before he died, "All we say to America is be true to what you said on paper." Equal means equal.
Florida has finally legalized driving while gay. Bills to discriminate against gay couples are rapidly multiplying in Texas. And multiple states are still wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to reverse marriage equality.
Even if the country would eventually get to national recognition of marriage equality through the democratic process -- and that is a big "if" -- the Court is doing its duty by stepping in now.
Over the past year, as marriage equality rulings swept across the country, the U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly declined to step in. Now that the justices have agreed to hear marriage cases this term, many advocates of equality are optimistic that the Court will affirm that state marriage bans are unconstitutional.
With today's SCOTUS announcement we are entering what we hope will be the last phase of a journey toward greater dignity and equality for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people that started decades ago and has accelerated at a truly astounding rate over the last year and a half. A win before the high court would be a watershed moment for the LGBT-rights movement.
Statutes that distinguish between messages about different things and treat them differently are indeed content-based restrictions on speech, and the Court must clarify this in order to ensure that all speakers receive the full protections they are due.
The Supreme Court yesterday heard a case that reflects the tragic absurdity of both the War on Drugs and the mass deportation machine that relies on it.
On Jan. 8 the Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with state officials that Cassandra C., a 17-year-old with Hodgkin lymphoma, should be compelled to und...
Despite all the rhetoric against Obamacare, conservative governors and state officials aren't exactly lining up to join the latest Supreme Court challenge designed to gut the Affordable Care Act. To see why, just listen to Walker, whose comments in 2013 controvert the central claim in King.
For a justice system clamoring for greater transparency and fair play, it seems SDNY's actions do not always align with their expectations for others. Judge shopping is indeed "unsavory." Is it a crime?
For the last few weeks, anti-gay groups have been putting forth their best efforts to stop marriage from starting in Florida. But as luck would have it, their best efforts just weren't very good.
The state of Texas told Isis Brantley that she needed to spend thousands of hours taking useless classes and thousands of dollars on useless equipment before she would be permitted to teach hairbraiding at her own school. On Wednesday Judge Sam Sparks told Texas that that was unconstitutional.