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.
If you are a private figure and The New York Times or the Southern Poverty Law Center publishes a lie about you, you simply have to prove that the statement was false and harmed your reputation. The fact that the publisher didn’t know or care that the statement was false is irrelevant. But if you are a “public figure,” you not only have to prove that the statement was false and harmed your reputation, but that the statement was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” And the definition of who is a public figure constantly has expanded since 1964.
The Supreme Court’s important ruling last week on voter ID in North Carolina has been overlooked in the fervor over the high court’s spot-on decisions upholding the Second Amendment and religious freedom and overruling Roe v. Wade. But the court’s procedural decision Thursday in Berger v. NAACP will help prevent state officials from sabotaging the defense of state election laws and other measures being attacked by their political allies and friends.