The justices in Washington have since questioned whether they still have authority to move ahead, since they are hearing an appeal of a ruling that effectively no longer exists.ĭismissing the case could also punt the issue to the 2024 election cycle. Michigan GOP chair, others fined $58K for lawsuit to reject absentee ballotsĪfter Republicans regained control of the North Carolina Supreme Court in the midterms, the new majority granted a rare rehearing of the case and overturned the earlier decision. NY grand jury indicts Daniel Penny in subway chokehold death of Jordan Neely But now, they might not need to reach the merits at all. The justices appeared to search for a middle path during oral argument in December.
It prompted the state lawmakers to appeal to the nation’s highest court and argue that the state court had no authority, urging the justices to adopt the theory. Last year, Democratic-majority North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the state’s Republican-drawn congressional map. The case involves the so-called “independent state legislature” theory, which contends that the Constitution gives state legislatures near-total authority to regulate federal elections, removing all other state-level bodies from the process.įollowing that argument would prevent state courts and state constitutions from hearing claims such as partisan gerrymandering in congressional redistricting. Independent State Legislature TheoryĪn appeal from North Carolina Republican state lawmakers may upend legal challenges to congressional maps and other federal election rules. At oral argument, the court’s conservatives signaled support for Smith. She’s asked the justices to decide the question they never reached five years ago. But Colorado’s law would require Smith to offer those services to same-sex couples. In 2018, the court avoided weighing in on the hot-button issue by resolving cake shop owner Jack Phillips’s challenge to Colorado’s law on narrow grounds.Ī few miles away from Phillips’s shop, website designer Lorie Smith wants to create wedding websites.
Taking up a challenge to Colorado’s law, the high court may put its thumb on the scale this term. Various wedding vendors who oppose same-sex marriage and say their products amount to pure speech have challenged public accommodation laws that require them to provide equal services regardless of a customer’s sexual orientation. LGBTQ protectionsįirst came the cake baker. Several tribes and the Biden administration defended the ICWA before the justices, insisting the law’s references to “Indian child” and tribes are political-based distinctions, not race-based ones. The parties further argue that Congress exceeded its authority in enacting the law.
They are joined by Texas and a parent whose Native biological child was adopted by one of the couples. Several couples that sought to adopt or foster Native children are suing over the law, contending it institutes racial classifications that violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett during oral argument joined the court’s three liberals in fiercely questioning the challengers on whether they had legal standing to sue in the first place. It’s possible, however, that the court throws out the challenges without reaching the merits. The conservative-majority court during February’s oral argument cast doubt that the administration had the authority to unilaterally cancel hundreds of billions of dollars worth of student debt.
The income limit is doubled for married couples. The plan, currently on hold, would cancel up to $20,000 in loans for Pell Grant recipients and $10,000 for other borrowers, if the individual’s income is less than $125,000. The fate of President Biden’s student debt relief plan rests with the justices, who are weighing two separate challenges: one from six Republican-led states, the other from two individual borrowers.Īt stake is whether more than 40 million Americans will receive debt relief - as well as a major Biden campaign promise.
0 kommentar(er)
