The American Constitutional Rights Union filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of America’s leading firearms companies as they seek Supreme Court review of a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit allowing the Mexican government to sue them.
It's a lingering stain on this country that one name is consistently absent from Black History Month celebrations each February: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Based solely on our skin color, many prefer African Americans adopt certain ideological positions. When we don't, the attacks can be relentless.
Last time I checked, there was a security barrier around the US Supreme Court. I guess it all comes down to "rules for thee, but not for me."
Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats will convene a business meeting Thursday to consider their Supreme Court “ethics” bill. But there is no “ethics problem” with the Supreme Court, and certainly not with Justices Thomas and Alito, who have been falsely smeared even though they complied with the relevant disclosure provisions in place at the time.
In an amicus curiae brief, joined by the Alabama Center for Law and Liberty, the ACRU supported the Petitioners in Center for Medical Progress v. National Abortion Federation in their effort to obtain certiorari review in the United States Supreme Court. The district court imposed an injunction that prohibited Petitioners from distributing materials gathered at meetings of the National Abortion Federation. The Petitioners complained that the injunction amounted to an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.
Chief Justice John Roberts made a major error in judgment last week in rejecting the State of Alabama’s 2022 congressional redistricting plan in Allen v. Milligan, an error that, as dissenting Justice Samuel Alito says, puts the Voting Rights Act “on a perilous and unfortunate path.”
ACRU Executive Director Allen West has this to say on the issue, "The Senate Democrats do not possess the power of the purse, so any appropriations measure they propose would have to be approved by the US House of Representatives. However, this unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers assault by Senate Democrats against the Judicial branch is a clear threat to our representative democracy and its foundations. But, if the US Supreme Court needs a security force, I am more than happy to head it up!"
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in Moore v. Harper, a case that turns on the meaning of a key provision in the Constitution outlining the Framers’ structure for congressional elections.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a lawsuit filed by Texas and Louisiana over Biden administration guidelines that severely restricted the Department of Homeland Security’s enforcement of federal immigration law against illegal aliens.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which took center stage Tuesday during oral arguments at the Supreme Court, prohibits a state from imposing a “standard, practice, or procedure” that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color … .” Courts have found that states violate this provision when they draw new legislative districts that dilute the voting power of minority voters by either packing as many of these voters as possible into a single district or by splitting these voters among various other districts—practices known as “packing” and “cracking” voters.
