There’s a good chance the Roberts Court will make it easier for anti-choice advocates to influence elections by misleading the public.
The Court announced it would not hear the appeal of the owners of a photography business who claim they have a constitutional right to refuse to photograph same-sex couples. The decision lets stand a state supreme court ruling that states business owners must provide services to LGBTQ couples the same way they do to heterosexual couples.
The settlement is the latest in a string of litigation brought by the Alliance Defending Freedom over displaying graphic anti-abortion imagery on college campuses.
The lawsuit filed on behalf of an evangelical couple and their high school children argues the buffer zone unconstitutionally blocks their ability to “counsel” patients entering reproductive health-care clinics.
The bill would require a woman seeking an abortion to hear a description of the fetus over her objections.
Gov. Pat McCrory said that “costly and drawn out litigation” would not be worth the trouble over the one provision that was struck down, which would have forced all women seeking an abortion to receive and be shown a narrated ultrasound before their procedure.
According to the court, the 2011 law violates abortion providers’ free speech rights.
The Supreme Court will consider whether the Susan B. Anthony List can challenge an Ohio law that prohibits lying in campaign ads.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the constitutionality of a Massachusetts buffer zone law. Conservatives see it as a chance to pounce on the idea that abortion patients deserve to be left alone as they enter clinics.
In a setback for Florida anti-choice protesters, a federal judge on Tuesday denied a request for a preliminary injunction against the noise ordinance.