In Bostock, Gorsuch reaches the semi-mystical conclusion that any word or concept having to do with “sex” may constitute “sex discrimination."
Three cases that deal with a powerful federal law pervasive in its influence pose the opportunity to the Court for the takeover of legislative power.
We are fast abandoning the fundamental jurisprudence of our law that legislatures make general rules and courts apply them to specific circumstances.
Ironically, it was efforts to save the ACA that produced Judge O'Connor's conclusion that Obamacare could not stand.
Nothing surpasses the intellectual intoxication and will to power of a federal constitutional lawsuit—democracy be damned.
Harvard officials insist that the university does not engage in racial balancing, but their own admissions statistics prove otherwise.
Granting federal prosecutors the "discretion" to choose as a matter of policy what laws they favor and what laws they do not favor is just fine, right?
In yesterday's 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court held compelling crisis pregnancy centers to promote abortion violates free speech.
Mueller has presented an indictment alleging that foreign nationals attempted to “undermine public confidence in democracy” by means of social media.
What does it mean “to defraud” the entire United States government or “any” of its agencies?
Such is the state of American law and of American society that the decision of a single Colorado baker not to make a cake for a customer because of his religious objection to what the cake was for will now go before the Supreme Court.
Since retiring as an assistant United States Attorney, Thomas R. Ascik has written about legal and constitutional issues at a variety of websites.