This week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in two gay marriage cases: Hollingsworth v. Perry, which will decide the fate of California’s Proposition 8; and United States v. Windsor, which will decide the fate of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed in 1996 by President Clinton.
In one stunning moment Tuesday from the Supreme Court bench, we saw a very smart man say something of such profound stupidity that it should shake our very faith in some of the people who wear our loftiest judicial robes.
As a Texan, I grew up hearing about the legend of a fellow attorney, William Travis, who, when surrounded in the Alamo by Santa Anna’s army, drew his sword, traced a line in the sand, and invited all who were ready to give the ultimate price for their cause to step across the line. Of 183 men with him, all but one crossed the line.
The Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, deciding whether the federal government can deny benefits to same-sex couples. A majority of the justices are indicating the law is in jeopardy.
California’s voters passed state law Proposition 22, in 2000, with 61 percent of the vote: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized.”
The Supreme Court of the United States released same-day audio of arguments over whether California's ban on same-sex marriage should be overturned.
The feminists have ratcheted up the laws against men to such an outrageous level that paternity fraud is not just ignored, but routinely rubber stamped by the courts. Whether one agrees with the concept of child support or not, virtually everyone can agree that jailing men for child support over children who are not theirs is morally wrong.
There was one particular testimony before the New Jersey Senate detailing the dangers of “gay conversion therapy” that was so riveting that it sounded like something taken straight out of a Hollywood script. It now appears that it was taken straight out of Hollywood. So, not only is the New Jersey Senate in danger of passing a terribly unfair, discriminatory bill, but the most compelling testimony presented appears to be a fabrication.
New Jersey police and Dept. of Children and Families officials raided the home of a firearms instructor and demanded to see his guns after he posted a Facebook photo of his 11-year-old son holding a rifle.
Over the course of the last twenty years, I have taught hundreds of cases highlighting constitutional violations in criminal investigations and adjudications. Some of the cases are so outrageous that it is hard to believe they actually happened in America. Until recently, I considered the 1964 juvenile adjudication of Gerald Gault to be unparalleled as a mockery of due process.
n 1919, back when the United States was a constitutional republic, Congress passed a child labor law imposing a 10 percent excise tax on companies that violated it. A North Carolina furniture maker challenged the law and won.
A judge struck down New York City's ban on big sugary drinks just hours before it was due to take effect, handing a defeat to Mayor Michael Bloomberg and creating confusion for restaurants that had already begun making changes.
Totalitarianism is brewing in the heartland. An Indiana inmate is now serving two years for voicing his online opinions against a judge who took away his child-custody rights during a divorce case. I know the custody case pretty well having written about it in 2009. But I'm convinced that the free speech case that is brewing in its aftermath heaps an even greater injustice upon an existing one. And I'm convinced it is showing the darker side of a dangerous man who needs to be stopped.
The mayor of a Washington town has directed pastors to stop invoking the name “Jesus Christ” in city council invocations.
As a conservative with gay friends, nothing would make me happier than to watch Californians pass an initiative to legalize same-sex marriage -- preferably with protections for religious objectors. Polls suggest it would pass today. Then the issue would be settled, and Californians -- not a court in Washington -- would have determined their own marriage laws.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi addressed a rally outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday. The Court is wrestling with the fate of a section of a landmark civil rights law that has helped millions of Americans exercise their right to vote.
The ultimate objective of the law is to establish the moral code of a community. There’s really no other reason to go to all the trouble of creating a law in the first place if not to ingrain in the minds of a people the idea that certain things are right or wrong.
When you hear the name Southern Poverty Law Center, it immediately evokes images of Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Freedom Rides... all iconic symbols of the civil rights movement. And rightly so, for these are the events that inspired it’s founding.
In late February, the United States Supreme Court will consider a case that invokes American history, constitutional meaning, and the realities of present-day voting in a large portion of our nation.
Much of the debate surrounding same-sex marriage asks about societal harms. Many advocates of the change quickly dismiss the question and insist that a redefinition of marriage won’t hurt anyone. But that conclusion proceeds from a misperception about what marriage is—a failure to grasp marriage’s role as a public institution that shapes our thoughts and actions.
The Ninth Circuit U.S. Appeals Court is where the Pledge of Allegiance gets scrutinized for possible eradication, at least, the “under God” part. But every so often, the Court gets something right.
Lawyers representing three of the men charged in the New Delhi gang rape case said last week that they would enter pleas of not guilty on their clients' behalf. In most criminal prosecutions, that would be unremarkable. But the lawyers who stepped forward to represent the suspects in this case did so in the face of emotional protests by fellow attorneys, many of whom insisted that no one should defend those accused of such a terrible crime.
The accelerated transformation of the American economy and polity into a mandatory racially-based spoils system was a defining trait of President Barack Obama’s first term in office. Though perhaps understated, it is set to become an even more defining trait of his second.
Alliance Defending Freedom recently settled a lawsuit brought on behalf of Julea Ward, a former graduate student at Eastern Michigan University who was expelled from her counseling program after refusing to violate her religious beliefs.
It has been a couple of weeks since the death of Robert Bork, which occurred shortly before Christmas and didn’t really get the news coverage that Bork merited.