CreatorsPublishersAdvertisers

Supreme Court

Supreme Court rulings always include the perspective of a white male, but often exclude viewpoints of Black and Latina justices

In recent decades, much progress has been made in diversifying the Supreme Court. While only white males served as justices for more than 175 years, the court now includes three female justices, one Black and one Latina justice. Despite the increased diversity, however, the court’s voting rules often exclude minority viewpoints. Like most other courts, the Supreme Court decides its cases by a majority vote. If at least five of the nine justices agree on a resolution, they are able to determine the court’s decision and impose their preferred outcome. If other justices disagree, they cannot ensure that their views are taken...
CONGRESS & COURTS
Picture for Supreme Court rulings always include the perspective of a white male, but often exclude viewpoints of Black and Latina justices
Myhighplains.com

Rep. Ronny Jackson joins Supreme Court amicus brief, claims Washington school coach unfairly fired

AMARILLO, Texas (KAMR/KCIT) – Texas District 13 Representative Ronny Jackson joined an amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court in support of Coach Joe Kennedy in the in-progress Kennedy v. Bemerton School District case, asking the Court to hear and agree with a coach’s claim that he was fired for silently kneeling and praying after his high school’s football games.
WASHINGTON STATE
Picture for Rep. Ronny Jackson joins Supreme Court amicus brief, claims Washington school coach unfairly fired
RELATED PEOPLE

Supreme Court to hear arguments on Texas abortion law

The U.S. Supreme Court will take up procedural challenges to Texas' controversial abortion law on November 1. The conservative majority has decided to allow the law, banning most abortions after about six weeks, to remain in place while legal proceedings are underway. CBS News political reporter Melissa Quinn joins CBSN's Elaine Quijano with details.
TEXAS STATE
Washington Post

A wealth tax is a good idea — if we had a different Supreme Court

Daniel Hemel is a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and a visiting professor at New York University School of Law. Senate Democrats and the Biden administration are reportedly nearing a deal on a new “billionaire tax” to pay for the package of spending programs that is stalled in Congress. The tax — which would apply annually to the increase in the value of stocks and other assets held by taxpayers with a net worth of $1 billion or more — appears to be one of the few revenue-raising measures that Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), a key swing vote, is willing to countenance. But there is a potentially fatal flaw in the proposal that should cause progressives to view it as a Trojan horse: The current Supreme Court is quite likely to strike it down as unconstitutional.
INCOME TAX
Washington Post

India’s Supreme Court orders independent probe following Pegasus Project investigation

NEW DELHI — India’s Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered an independent probe into reports that phone numbers belonging to journalists, activists and political figures in India were found on a list that included some numbers selected for surveillance by clients of the Israeli surveillance firm NSO Group. The Pegasus Project,...
INDIA
RELATED PUBLISHERS
Washington Post

The Supreme Court should hesitate before striding into this free speech minefield

The nation today has a surfeit of indignation, but wholesome exasperation — brisk impatience with foolishness — is always in short supply. Hence the exhilaration one experiences reading Judge Edith Jones’s dissent, 16 months ago, on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, concerning a case the Supreme Court will hear next Tuesday. If Jones’s argument was right, David Wilson’s case should not have reached the Supreme Court and his argument should not prevail there.
CONGRESS & COURTS
Vox

The Supreme Court case that could gut America’s gun laws, explained

For nearly all its history, the Supreme Court kept its distance from gun policy. Now it’s about to decide a case that could radically reduce the government’s power to regulate guns. The Second Amendment states explicitly that it exists to protect “a well regulated Militia,” and until fairly recently, the...
CONGRESS & COURTS

India’s Supreme Court orders independent probe into Pegasus snooping claims

India’s top court on Wednesday appointed an independent committee to probe the allegations that prime minister Narendra Modi’s government used the Israeli military-grade spyware Pegasus to snoop on sitting members of Parliament, judges, journalists, and activists.The Supreme Court order came in response to multiple petitions filed by journalists, rights activists and opposition politicians who sought an investigation into accusations of illegal surveillance by the government.The court slammed the Modi government on Wednesday for using national security as an excuse to not divulge information, and also declined the government’s request to set up a panel of experts, saying it would...
INDIA
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
arcamax.com

Commentary: The Supreme Court is broken and needs to be reformed

The Supreme Court's reputation has been sullied by deeply contentious confirmation processes and the resulting polarizing rulings by its own justices. One would hope that the commission convened by President Joe Biden would at least acknowledge that this is a problem significant enough to warrant consideration of some transformative reform. But if the commission's first public deliberations Oct. 15 are any indication of the trajectory of this group, it has a ways to go before even agreeing on this fundamental premise.
CONGRESS & COURTS
Houston Chronicle

Why abortion soared to top of Supreme Court docket

The U.S. Supreme Court raised the stakes in the politically explosive fight over reproductive rights by agreeing to hear arguments on Nov. 1 on a Texas law that has largely shut down legal abortion in the state. The court won't directly decide if the law -- which bans almost all abortions after six weeks of pregnancy -- violates Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized the procedure nationwide. Nor will the justices be addressing whether to overturn its abortion-rights precedents; that's an issue they will consider in a separate case on Dec. 1. But the decision to intervene in the Texas case -- and hear arguments on a highly expedited schedule -- reshapes the multifaceted legal fight. The outcome could hint at the fate of abortion rights nationwide.
CONGRESS & COURTS
Salt Lake Tribune

Floyd Abrams: The Supreme Court faces a huge test on libel law

Next Friday, the United States Supreme Court is scheduled to meet to consider whether to hear appeals from two libel cases in which the plaintiffs seek to persuade the justices to reconsider the single greatest First Amendment victory for the press in American history. Two of the court’s justices, Clarence...
CONGRESS & COURTS