The case would have given the Court a chance to decide if state bans on direct corporate-to-candidate contributions violate the Constitution.
What conservatives really mean when they talk about “religious freedom” has been revealed already by their longstanding crusade against the birth control benefit afforded by the Affordable Care Act. For them, having religious freedom requires the right to discriminate—against specific people, and in a specific way.
Palin closed CPAC with a speech that demonstrated the right’s women problem: It’s hard to win women when you can’t help insulting them.
Forty-one years since Roe v. Wade, the question is: Will the Roberts Court do to Roe and abortion rights what it did to health-care reform and keep just enough of it intact to call it legal, while rendering it nearly impossible to obtain?
The Supreme Court will consider whether the Susan B. Anthony List can challenge an Ohio law that prohibits lying in campaign ads.
Two new reports on state court elections show the damaging role outside money plays in local judicial elections.
A ruling Friday by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals highlights the political nature of the fight over the birth control benefit in the Affordable Care Act.
On the second day of its term, the Roberts Court looks ready to allow more political spending. The question is just how much more?
Led by attorney James Bopp Jr., the anti-choice advocacy group wants to spend money on political campaigns without declaring itself a political action committee. Will the Roberts Court let it?
The ugly reality is that this entire battle over the contraception mandate is about something bigger. It’s about private businesses and corporations creating a legal loophole that allows them to opt out of an array of worker protections and other regulations, all by citing “religious freedom” as a reason.