(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday considers whether business owners can object on religious grounds to a provision of President Barack Obama's healthcare law that requires employers to provide health insurance that covers birth control.
The case, which has no bearing on the broader fate of the healthcare law, will determine whether some companies will be exempted
Named for its two founding brothers, the Bradley Foundation attracts less attention than the half-dozen different family
Whatever the outcome of this week's historic Supreme Court hearings on same-sex marriage, one thing has become crystal clear: there is no longer, if there ever was, a rational argument to ban it. Are there any grounds for holding that position beyond simple prejudice?
"Three million dollars speaks very loudly," she said. "I think their behavior has been ... really disappointing and unworthy
The new media were ablaze on the evening of February 22 after U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli filed a brief in United States v. Windsor asking the Supreme Court to overturn Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
On Tuesday, Clement's 60-page brief in United States v. Windsor was filed with the Supreme Court, revealing his arguments
With rulings on gay marriage from two federal appellate courts in the past week, it is now more likely that the Supreme Court will finally grapple with the key civil rights issue of our time. We are in a stage where timing, litigation strategy, and judicial politics will all be critical.
The Supreme Court shouldn't buy S.B. 1070 supporters' claims when it hears arguments tomorrow. The Constitution doesn't allow states to set immigration and foreign policy, and it certainly doesn't allow them to do so in a manner that discriminates against people of color.
The Supreme Court turns its attention this week to the emotional subject of immigration controls. At issue is the constitutionality of a 2010 Arizona law so widely known that its very title -- S.B. 1070 -- seems enough to start a political argument.
WASHINGTON -- On Wednesday morning, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the federal government's challenge to the
It is both customary and folly for Supreme Court watchers to predict outcomes of Supreme Court cases based on oral argument. So let me engage in the customary folly.
Lost in the arguments of conservatives and right-wing activists was the fact that the individual mandate -- the essential element that would bring tyranny to our homes -- was initially raised as the preferred strategy for health care reform by the right.
If the high court's conservative wing does indeed strike the minimum coverage provision, they will do so by actively ignoring or overriding precedent.
Paul D. Clement, legal icon of the conservative movement, found himself suggesting a tax hike that violates every fiber in the political body of congressional Republicans as well as the Grover Norquist pledge to never raise taxes in any way or for any reason -- ever.
When the Justices hear the six hours of argument on the constitutionality of healthcare reform this week, there will no doubt be much talk about "states' rights." But it is important to remember that the one arguing doesn't truly represent "the states" v. the federal government.