With the Supreme Court scheduled to hear oral argument in King v. Burwell next week, those looking for clues as to what the Court will decide later this year when it rules in King need look no further than a very different case.
The Seventh-day Adventist church and those diverse organizations who joined our amicus brief hope and pray that the Supreme Court strikes down the Tenth Circuit Court's unreasonable ruling that the burden is on a job applicant to ask for a religious exemption for rules he or she doesn't even know exist.
No matter your political point of view on the law, basic humanity dictates that we not leave millions of people without insurance and thousands who are getting needed medical care with no option to continue to buy health insurance and/or get the medical care they need.
Last Wednesday, Mississippi petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court decision that is keeping the state's only remaining abortion clinic open--for now. The clinic is under threat of closure, thanks to a 2012 state law that requires abortion clinic doctors to gain admitting privileges at local hospitals.
There is one married lesbian couple in Texas right now. Probably. Last week a judge allowed Sarah Goodfriend and Suzanne Bryant to obtain a marriage license, citing urgency after Sarah was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. The ruling applies only to this one couple. And according to state officials, that's still one couple too many.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once remarked in a dissent that many dangers visit the Court in sheep's clothing, "but this wolf comes as a wolf....
Clinton in 2016 could have the same effect as Reagan in 1980 and 1984: recruiting Democratic candidates, inspiring Democratic supporters and winning an electoral landslide. Reagan would be embarrassed by Republicans today.
The Republican Party and the political media world are already off to the 2016 horse races. It is way too early for any real analysis of the public's mood, but that doesn't stop the oddsmaking within the Beltway. After all, the Democratic nomination race is setting up to be a snoozer, so why not get started obsessing over the Republican race?
Things are finally settling down in Alabama. We'll take a look at just how messy it got last week, and what happens now. Plus, Justice Ginsburg makes some pretty candid predictions for the Supreme Court's upcoming marriage decision.
While Congress's recent interest in addressing these and other forfeiture abuses is encouraging, we must also remember that rights are far less secure when protected by statute rather than the Constitution
Sen. Cruz's "State Marriage Defense Act" is unlikely to become law anytime soon. Yet it is a good example of the kind of chaotic reaction the U.S. Supreme Court eventually could unleash if it upheld anti-gay state marriage laws in the case it will hear later this term. Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts, are you listening?
Valentine's Day takes on a special meaning at the Supreme Court this year. The first case on the docket delves straight into the matter of love and rights. Specifically, the Court is asked whether a U.S. citizen can be denied the ability to live here with her spouse without the government providing a reason.
Sometimes playwright John Cariani looks at the world -- actually the worlds of love and relationships -- through rose-colored glasses. Just as often he views those worlds through lenses tinted a middling-to-dark-gray or maybe a jaundiced yellow.
If you believe in America, then there really is no excuse for not spending $900 million and joining the great American experiment that is our democracy. You see, $900 million may sound like a lot of money. But according to the Supreme Court, it's not. It's a lot of speech. The Koch Brothers understand this.
The chief justice of Alabama's supreme court is making a stand in the courthouse door. This is not literally happening, the way it did in 1963 when Alabama Gov. George Wallace made a similar stand in the schoolhouse door. But in both cases, high Alabama officials are trying to preserve the state's ability to discriminate against a segment of its population.
If Roy Moore isn't prepared to uphold the law, than perhaps the role of Chief Justice isn't right for him. And if he doesn't recognize that, then perhaps others should recognize it for him and remove him from office. The Court has lots of room for different legal thinkers, but it has no place for those who refuse to think about the law.