On June 26, a divided Supreme Court ruled in a five-to-four decision that same-sex couples nationwide have the Constitutional right to marry. Until the decision, same-sex couples were barred from marriage in fourteen states.
The Supreme Court announced Jan. 16 that it would review appeals from four circuit courts that ruled on same-sex marriage last year. The longstanding legal debate over the rights of same-sex couples appears to be heading towards a resolution.
Monday, October 6 saw same-sex marriage's greatest stride since 2013, when the Supreme Court announced it would not hear appeals to lower court rulings, which effectively legalizes same-sex marriage in five new states.
But the decision should not be upheld because Hall is not mentally fit enough to be put to death and because "bright-line" death penalty laws like Florida's are unfair.
A recent Supreme Court case will allow organizations to support global anti-HIV/AIDS efforts, without the federal requirement of promoting anti-prostitution.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to take on the case of Proposition 8. If the court does choose to hear the case, they could make a decision that would affect not just California, but the whole country.
In Fisher v. University of Texas, the Supreme Court should rule in favor of Texas, but with one caveat. They should state that affirmative action should now solely be based on an applicant's financial status and social background.
After the Boys Scouts of America banned Jennifer Tyrell from her son's Cub Scout troop for her sexuality, we are reminded of how all to similar this is to racial discrimination.
President Barack Obama made a bold move while the U.S. Supreme Court analyzed the constitutionality of one of his laws: he took another shot at the high court. Although the PPACA, including the insurance mandate, is far from perfect (it notably has stirred other controversies), it breaches neither the Commerce Clause of the Constitution nor infringes on our civil liberties.
The Wal-mart vs. Dukes decision, which is considered to be a landmark ruling, will only give rich and powerful businesses precedent in future sex discrimination cases.
We found 10 results.