Not since President Harry Truman 66 years ago was denied the power to seize control of an industry vital to waging war has the Supreme Court faced a constitutional test of the Chief Executive’s authority as crucial as the one it takes up on Wednesday.
Sometimes, the Supreme Court’s ultimate power to define what the Constitution means seems just too daunting for the Justices. That was the sentiment that swept across the bench Tuesday, as the Court confronted – after years of refusing to do so – the question of whether to allow states broad new freedom to tax shopping that consumers do via the Internet.
For the first time in any court, a federal judge in Seattle has ruled that transgender people are entitled to the fullest protection of the Constitution against discrimination.
The Supreme Court and a federal appeals court are now moving simultaneously to sort out a major constitutional controversy over a right to abortion for undocumented teenaged girls being held in federal immigration centers and who are now or will become pregnant.
For more than three decades, some members of the Supreme Court have thought the courts should do something to rein in the centuries-old practice of partisan gerrymandering – that is, drawing election districts to give one party’s candidates a clear advantage. But none of the Justices have thought they knew what to do about it.
Answering a constitutional question that the Supreme Court left open nearly 21 years ago in a case against President Bill Clinton, a state trial judge in New York ruled Tuesday that President Trump does not have immunity to being sued in state court on claims related to sexual misconduct that did not involve official acts.
In the space of about three hours on Monday, the intense, months-long battle over partisan gerrymandering in Pennsylvania elections this year for 18 members of the U.S. House of Representatives reached a pause, one that may well end it altogether.
In a unanimous ruling Monday afternoon, a three-judge federal court in Harrisburg, PA, threw out a challenge by Pennsylvania Republican officials and members of Congress about a new map for the election of the state’s 18 members of the U.S. House of Representatives.
As the Supreme Court considers a stay request in one case, a federal trial court in Harrisburg, PA, is pondering a complex question of states’ rights that could end another case without a decision on who wins.
The high-profile constitutional fight in Pennsylvania over voting for Congress this year will remain in limbo at least for the next few days, with no action at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., and a lengthy hearing but no decision in a federal court in Harrisburg, PA, on Friday.