You are here


November 11, 2014

Today’s Snapshot looks at Chief Justice Roberts’s approach to cases addressing campaign finance and voting rights.  The bottom line is simple: in case after case—and even as the right to vote is explicitly protected by the language of the Constitution—Chief Justice Roberts and his conservative colleagues have made it easier to donate, but harder to vote. CAC Civil Rights Director David Gans, author of today’s Snapshot, said, “This is one area of the law where Chief Justice Roberts’s project to promote judicial restraint has plainly failed to date, and the reason is clear: Roberts has pursued a slash-and-burn expedition to undo critical aspects of our democracy.”

November 7, 2014

CAC President Doug Kendall said, “We are disappointed that at least four Justices decided to hear this case despite the lack of a circuit split and while this issue is still being actively litigated in the lower courts, but we remain very confident that the Court will ultimately find that both the text of the ACA and the intentions of Congress mandate a ruling for the federal government.”

November 6, 2014

CAC Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra said, “The majority opinion by Judge Jeffrey Sutton  fundamentally  misunderstands the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment, barely engaging with the words and meaning if the const.”

November 3, 2014
CAC Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra said, “The Court today has withheld making a decision on whether to take up this last-ditch challenge to the Affordable Care Act. The Court could ‘hold’ the case, perhaps waiting for the D.C. Circuit to conclude its en banc consideration of a similar case, Halbig v. Burwell.  Or the Court could ‘relist’ the King petition to another conference, waiting for another day in the near future to issue a final decision to either deny or grant certiorari. The Court normally discusses pending cases in conferences two or three times per month on Friday mornings, and issues any orders in those cases the following Monday.  If it follows its usual practice, the Court should deny review and allow the issue to percolate in the lower courts.”