Given the events of the past few days, there was relatively little hope that last night’s presidential debate would turn into a substantive discussion of policy issues. Indeed, The Washington Post noted that the night was dominated by insults, and its print edition called the event a “dark, bitter faceoff.”
A lot of people around the country have been debating whether Colin Kaepernick’s refusal to stand during the national anthem prior to games is an appropriate form of silent protest against racial injustice.
The U.S. Supreme Court in May took a pass on dealing with the important question of access to birth control, an action that could leave tens of thousands of women in limbo.
In a brief order issued for the case of Zubik v. Burwell, the high court vacated several cases before it dealing with employee access to birth control and sent them back to lower courts for more proceedings.
This Sunday will mark the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which brought marriage equality to the states in 2015.
Writing for the 5-4 majority in that case, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy explained that all people have a right to the dignity that marriage bestows on couples.
The U.S. Supreme Court in March heard oral arguments in a case that will determine whether religiously affiliated non-profits have the right to deny women employees access to birth control on the basis of the groups’ theological beliefs.
The March 23 argument lasted 90 minutes and was marked by spirited exchanges and sharp questioning from the justices. A clear division emerged from the court’s liberal and conservative wings, leading some analysts to speculate that the high court may split 4-4.
The government, at least in theory, is supposed to be neutral on matters of theology, neither favoring religion nor irreligion.
In a 1989 case called Texas Monthly v. Bullock, Justice William Brennan wrote, “In proscribing all laws ‘respecting an establishment of religion,’ the Constitution prohibits, at the very least, legislation that constitutes an endorsement of one or another set of religious beliefs or of religion generally.”
In an editorial for The New York Times, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner slammed a U.S. Supreme Court justice for his views on gay rights. Posner, who co-wrote the piece with Georgia State University law professor Eric Segall, argued that Antonin Scalia’s vehement opposition to gay rights is incompatible with the Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court should rule against employers demanding an additional exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) birth control regulations, Americans United for Separation for Church and State says.
The Washington Post over the weekend published a rather silly column online by Judd Birdsall, managing director of the Cambridge Institute on Religion & International Studies, asserting that opponents of same-sex marriage had reacted gracefully to Friday’s U.S. Supreme Court.
Editor’s Note: This blog post is the third and final in a series by Americans United’s Legal Department examining possible outcomes in the marriage equality case currently pending before the Supreme Court. This post discusses what will likely happen if the high court issues a split decision.