Last week, the Supreme Court concluded its most recent Term by handing down two cases in which the Justices divided along ideological lines. In
Americans for Prosperity Foundation (APF) v. Bonta, Chief Justice Roberts and his fellow Republican appointees invalidated a California law requiring charitable organizations to turn over their donor lists, citing the organizations’ and donors’ First Amendment interest in anonymity. Justice Sotomayor dissented for herself and the other Democratic appointees.
It requires no great leap to envision
APF’s application to campaign finance disclosure requirements in a future case and thus the elimination of the principal regulatory option that the Court’s Republican majority ostensibly left open in its 2010 ruling in
The Declaration is the idea of America that unites us
thehill.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from thehill.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
National Archives Report Condemns the Founding Documents – PJ Media
pjmedia.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from pjmedia.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Analysis: How the Supreme Court has tilted election law to favor the Republican Party David G. Savage © (Associated Press) Under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the Supreme Court in 2013 threw out part of the Voting Rights Act requiring states with histories of discriminating against Black voters to clear election rule changes with the Justice Department. (Associated Press)
This year s wave of new voting restrictions across the South may seem a response to the 2020 election, but its origins stem in no small part from the Supreme Court, which over the last decade has reshaped election law to elevate the power of state lawmakers over the rights of their voters.