• Students Who Want to ‘Kick Kavanaugh Off Campus’ Should Take a Hike

    Students Who Want to ‘Kick Kavanaugh Off Campus’ Should Take a Hike

    George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School recently announced Justice Brett Kavanaugh will teach a class during its summer term on the creation of the Constitution.

    Students will travel to Runnymede, England, the location where Magna Carta was sealed more than 800 years ago.

    Naturally, this led a student group from the undergraduate university called Mason 4 Survivors to post an apoplectic petition on Change.org demanding the school cut ties with Kavanaugh. Some of these students actually say Kavanaugh’s hiring jeopardizes their safety and happiness.

    Some members of the undergraduate university’s Faculty Senate are now calling for the school to independently investigate the claims of sexual assault leveled against Kavanaugh during his confirmation last fall.… Read More...

  • 2 Key Cases the Supreme Court Will Hear in April

    2 Key Cases the Supreme Court Will Hear in April

    Conversations about the Supreme Court this spring have been dominated by discussion of conspiracy theories about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health, Democratic presidential hopefuls’ plans to “pack the Supreme Court,” and a manufactured “controversy” over Justice Brett Kavanaugh teaching at George Mason University’s Scalia Law School.

    But on Monday, the justices will begin their final argument sitting of the term, with 13 oral arguments scheduled over the next two weeks. Here are two cases to watch this month.

    1. Whether the Term ‘FUCT’ Can Be Trademarked

    In Iancu v. Brunetti, the justices will look at whether a federal law called the Lanham Act that prohibits registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks by the U.S.… Read More...

  • This Case Could Finally Rein in Federal Agencies

    This Case Could Finally Rein in Federal Agencies

    Administrative agencies today issue regulations touching on nearly every aspect of Americans’ daily lives—from highways to health care, and often with limited supervision from the other branches of government.

    Congress has delegated more and more of its lawmaking authority to unaccountable administrative agencies, which in turn often are insulated from direct supervision by the president.

    Compounding this problem, the Supreme Court has created doctrines instructing courts to defer to the reasonable interpretations of administrative agency officials in the face of ambiguous statutory text or regulations. Specifically, the court’s decisions in Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. (1945) and Auer v.Read More...

  • Here Are 4 Egregious Ways the Left Wants to Transform American Politics

    Here Are 4 Egregious Ways the Left Wants to Transform American Politics

    “When you can’t win the game, change the rules.”

    That seems to be the motto of the far left these days. Not content to play by the rules, they hope to tilt the playing field to their own advantage and in the process transform American politics.

    Here are four ways they’ve proposed doing that.

    1. Packing the Supreme Court

    A number of Democratic presidential hopefuls have floated the idea of adding new seats on the Supreme Court.

    To begin with, this is something the Constitution gives Congress the power to determine. But this isn’t the first time the political branches have played politics with the Supreme Court by trying to tinker with the number of seats.… Read More...

  • Supreme Court Halts Louisiana Abortion Law—for Now

    Supreme Court Halts Louisiana Abortion Law—for Now

    Late Thursday night, the Supreme Court put on hold a Louisiana law that would require abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic.

    The Louisiana law was introduced by state Rep. Katrina Jackson, a Democrat, and passed overwhelmingly in the state’s House of Representatives and Senate in 2014 by a vote of 85-6 and 34-3, respectively.

    In 2016, the court ruled that a similar Texas law constituted an “undue burden” on access to abortion within the state. In addition to requiring admitting privileges, the Texas law also would have required abortion clinics to meet the same cleanliness and safety standards as ambulatory surgical centers.… Read More...

  • What Ginsburg’s Absence From Supreme Court Means and What It Doesn’t

    What Ginsburg’s Absence From Supreme Court Means and What It Doesn’t

    The Supreme Court justices returned for the court’s first oral arguments of 2019 this week without America’s favorite octogenarian, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    Seasoned litigators and Ginsburg fanatics alike were shocked by Chief Justice John Roberts’ announcement on Monday that Ginsburg would miss oral arguments.

    The announcement came less than three weeks after the Supreme Court issued a statement regarding Ginsburg having a procedure to remove from her left lung cancerous nodules, which had been discovered when she was treated for broken ribs following a fall in November.

    Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg issued a statement on Friday indicating Ginsburg’s recovery is “on track” and that “[p]ost-surgery evaluation indicates no evidence of remaining disease, and no further treatment is required.”

    News outlets are reporting that Ginsburg will be absent from oral arguments next week as well.

  • 3 Upcoming Supreme Court Cases to Watch

    3 Upcoming Supreme Court Cases to Watch

    After a two-week break, the Supreme Court has returned to hear its final round of cases for 2018.

    Among the issues that the court will address are whether half of Oklahoma is an Indian reservation, excessive fines, and double jeopardy.

    The following are three cases to watch in the Supreme Court’s last sitting of the year:

    1. Carpenter v. Murphy

    Is half of Oklahoma an Indian reservation? That’s the argument Dwayne Murphy is pressing to challenge his conviction in state court for mutilating and murdering his romantic rival in Henryetta, Oklahoma.

    Murphy is a member of the Creek Nation, and he claims that the crimes took place within the boundaries of the Creek Nation and, as such, the state did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him.

  • Here Are 3 Cases to Watch at the Supreme Court

    Here Are 3 Cases to Watch at the Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court is back in session after a two-week break. The justices will hear arguments in a number of important cases, including ones dealing with coercive class-action settlements, using hovercrafts for moose hunting in Alaska, and Virginia’s ban on uranium mining.

    Here are three cases to watch closely in the coming weeks.

    Frank v. Gaos

    Is it fair for the majority of a class-action settlement to go to third-party recipients with ties to the defendant and the class attorneys? That’s what a district court approved in a suit alleging that Google violated users’ privacy when it disclosed users’ search terms to third parties.

  • I Stand With Brett Kavanaugh

    I Stand With Brett Kavanaugh

    When I read Christine Blasey Ford’s account of being assaulted when she was a teenager, I felt sick to my stomach.

    How could you not after reading how she was trapped in a room and pinned down as a boy groped her and tried to rip her clothes off? This is a serious allegation.

    Ford should be treated with respect, and she deserves an opportunity to share her story.

    She is not, however, entitled to blind faith that everything she says is true. Judge Brett Kavanaugh also deserves to be heard and should be treated with the same level of respect.

  • Supreme Court Declined to Hear Arkansas Abortion Case. Here’s What That Means.

    This week, the Supreme Court declined to take up Planned Parenthood’s challenge to a 2015 Arkansas law intended to protect women experiencing complications after a medication abortion.

    The commonsense reform would require clinics that provide abortion-inducing drugs to have an arrangement with a doctor at a nearby hospital. In the case of an emergency, that doctor could then treat the woman at the hospital—something the Arkansas Legislature determined is necessary in light of the myriad complications that can result from a drug-induced abortion.

    In a 2017 report, the Food and Drug Administration indicated there have been 22 reported deaths caused by medication abortions since the drug was approved in 2000.

  • 3 Supreme Court Cases to Watch This Month

    3 Supreme Court Cases to Watch This Month

    The Supreme Court is back in session this week. The justices will hear oral arguments in cases dealing with free speech, political gerrymandering, and the rights of criminal defendants.

    Here are three cases to watch.

    1. Can states force pro-life centers to advertise for abortions?

    On March 20, the court will hear arguments in NIFLA v. Becerra, a case challenging the California “Reproductive FACT Act.” The law, passed in 2015, requires pro-life pregnancy centers to place ads in their facilities for the state’s free or low-cost abortion program.

    The centers argue that compelling them to promote the state’s message violates their free speech rights and undercuts the work that they do.

  • Supreme Court Hears Ban on Political T-Shirts at the Polls

    Supreme Court Hears Ban on Political T-Shirts at the Polls

    When was the last time a T-shirt or button influenced the way you voted?

    Probably never—but the state of Minnesota thinks its citizens are much more impressionable, so it banned voters from wearing items that could be construed as “political” at polling places.

    In addition to prohibiting express advocacy on behalf of a political candidate or ballot question, Minnesota’s law also bans “issue oriented material designed to influence or impact voting” and “material promoting a group with recognizable political views,” such as a “Don’t Tread on Me” T-shirt.

    On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Minnesota Voters Alliance v.

  • Meet These 2 Trump Judicial Nominees Who Just Fielded Questions in the Senate

    Meet These 2 Trump Judicial Nominees Who Just Fielded Questions in the Senate

    This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee considered two of President Donald Trump’s best nominations to date—Kyle Duncan for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and David Stras for the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, scheduled the hearing over the protest of Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., who refused to return his blue slip on Stras’ nomination.

    After holding out, Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., returned a modified blue slip for Duncan, indicating that Duncan should receive a hearing but not announcing whether he supports the nomination.

    Blue Slip Blues

    The president nominated Stras in May, along with several other nominees who have now been confirmed to the bench.

  • What the Supreme Court Is Up to This Term

    What the Supreme Court Is Up to This Term

    The Supreme Court’s final sitting of 2017 begins this week, and the justices will hear oral arguments in a number of high-profile cases involving the Fourth Amendment, free speech and religious liberty, federalism, and property rights.

    Here’s a look at the cases coming up.

    Property Rights of Patent Holders

    On Nov. 27, the Supreme Court will hear Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, a case involving the federal government’s ability to review the validity of a patent through an administrative proceeding (known as “inter partes” review), rather than in federal court.

    Oil States Energy Services patented a particular technique to increase the longevity of wellheads used in hydraulic fracking, and later filed a patent infringement suit against another oil company, Greene’s Energy Group.

  • Democrats Berate Conservative Judicial Nominee for Politically Incorrect Tweets

    Democrats Berate Conservative Judicial Nominee for Politically Incorrect Tweets

    This week, two nominees to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, facing fierce opposition from Democrats.

    President Donald Trump nominated Don Willett and James Ho to seats on the federal appeals court based in Texas.

    Willett, currently a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, is known as the “Tweeter Laureate of Texas” for his entertaining social media presence.

    Despite this playful side, Willett is a thoughtful jurist with more than a decade of experience on the bench. He also worked for George W. Bush during his governorship and presidency.

    Willett was included on Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees—which ups the stakes of his confirmation to the federal appeals court.