Travis Knoll, University of North Carolina – Charlotte
The US Supreme Court is poised to determine the fate of the use of race in college admissions. Supporters of affirmative action, like the military, fear the worst.
In the Shelby v. Holder decision, a key section of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act was eliminated, thus enabling states with histories of racial discrimination to enact new voting laws.
Political debate has always been filled with heated words and deeply held emotions. But the level of civility in political discourse has reached a new low.
Black conservative Clarence Thomas’ improbable rise as a powerful US Supreme Court justice today was unimaginable during his controversial confirmation hearings in 1991.
Affirmative action, discrimination against LGBTQ people and election laws are some of the hot-button issues that the Supreme Court will tackle this fall.
Major Supreme Court decisions and reversals last term are leaving some people, including this scholar on constitutional politics, wondering – what’s going on with the court?
Other countries disqualify political officials and prevent them from holding office more often than the US does. There are benefits and potential risks to using this kind of legal tactic.
In 1972, justices handed down a decision that attacked discriminatory and capricious death sentences. But it left the door ajar for states to continue the practice.
Lower federal court judges follow a formal code of ethics, but this does not apply to Supreme Court justices, leaving potential conflicts of interest unchecked.
A doctrine embraced by some conservatives could be adopted by the US Supreme Court. And if the court does, Americans’ political power will be dramatically limited.
Grand juries are meeting in Georgia and Washington, D.C., as part of investigations into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. How do they work?
For the past 50 years, the Supreme Court has issued rulings that narrow tribal rights while Congress has worked to expand them. A recent ruling struck yet another blow against Native sovereignty.
The notwithstanding clause is both historically appropriate and democratically desirable. Excising it would make our Charter of Rights and Freedoms more American. Is that really where we want to go?