supreme-court

Next Supreme Court Term Stacked With Major Cases

Members of the US Supreme Court are photographed on Thursday. (Rex Features via AP Images)

The Supreme Court ended its current term this week without deciding the kinds of blockbuster issues that usually draw demonstrators to its plaza at the end of June, but the justices have seeded their next term with high-profile cases.

The addition of Justice Neil Gorsuch in April brought the court back to full strength for the first time in more than a year, and the justices are poised to jump into more contentious and headline-grabbing cases starting in October.

Supreme Court Lets Trump Go Ahead With Most of Travel Ban
President: ‘A clear victory for our national security’

Immigration rights activists chant during their May Day march in Washington to the White House to voice opposition to President Donald Trump's immigration policies on May 1. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call file photo)

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to implement much of its revised travel ban, but also agreed to review the legality of the controversial executive order in October.

The justices lifted injunctions from two federal appeals courts that had blocked the order, which seeks to stop foreign travelers from six majority-Muslim countries for 90 days and suspend all refugees from entering the United States for 120 days. The rulings had stymied one of President Donald Trump’s major policy initiatives in his first months in office — moves that he argued are key for national security.

Court Allows Some of Travel Ban, Will Decide Legality Later
The court also announced decisions on immigration detention, gun rights, same-sex marriage, separation of church and state

Activists hold signs during a protest outside the White House in March against President Donald Trump’s second executive order banning travel from some Muslim-majority countries. (Alex Wong/Getty Images file photo)

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to implement much of its revised travel ban, but also agreed to review the legality of the controversial executive order in October.

The justices lifted injunctions from two federal appeals courts that had blocked the order, which seeks to stop foreign travelers from six majority-Muslim countries for 90 days and suspends all refugees from entering the United States for 120 days. The rulings had stymied one of President Donald Trump’s major policy initiatives in his first months in office — moves that he argued are key for national security.

Scalia’s Unique Relationship with ‘Doppelganger’ Who Plays Him
Edward Gero recalls meeting with the late Supreme Court justice

Edward Gero as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in “The Originalist,” which runs from July 7 to 30 at Arena Stage. (Courtesy C. Stanley Photography)

The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s legacy, in part, lies with one man who had a very unique friendship with him: Edward Gero who plays Scalia in “The Originalist,” which returns July 7 to Arena Stage.

“I feel myself, in a way, representing the legacy of Scalia and all those great characteristics that he had as an intellectual, as a lover of language, as a grammarian, as a philosopher,” Gero said.

Supreme Court to Hear Case on Partisan Redistricting
Wisconsin case challenges politically motivated gerrymandering

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in the Wisconsin redistricting case in October. (Courtesy Phil Roeder/Flickr CC BY 2.0)

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear arguments in a Wisconsin case about partisan redistricting and gerrymandering, taking on a longstanding question that could change the way states draw congressional and legislative districts.

The justices have never fully answered when partisan gerrymanders — or maps that benefit one political party to the detriment of another — could be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court hasn’t weighed in on the issue in more than a decade and could be sharply divided.

American Catholics Have an Ally in Trump, VP Says
Pence speaks at D.C. breakfast

Vice President Mike Pence told attendees at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on Tuesday that Catholics “have an ally in President Donald Trump.” (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call File Photo)

By GRIFFIN CONNOLLY and KYLE STEWART

Vice President Mike Pence denounced terrorism in the Middle East and championed President Donald Trump’s early anti-abortion initiatives in an address Tuesday at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington.

Trump Slams London Mayor Over ISIS Bridge Attack Response
President drives another wedge between U.S. and key ally

London Mayor Sadiq Khan, left, shows then-U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry the view from his office before they met in October. President Donald Trump on Monday called Khan "pathetic" for comments that Londoners should not be alarmed due to a larger police presence following an ISIS attack on Saturday night. (State Department photo via Wikimedia Commons)

President Donald Trump broke with decades of diplomatic protocol by labeling London’s mayor “pathetic” for his response to an Islamic State attack there Saturday night.

The U.S. president appeared, for the second time, to take a statement out of context that Sadiq Khan made Sunday explaining to Londoners a planned ramped up security presence around the city. And in so doing, Trump opted to drive another wedge between the United States and an ally with which American long has had a “special relationship.”

Trump Criticizes His Justice Department Over ‘Watered Down’ Travel Ban
President wants DOJ to ask Supreme Court to review initial executive order

President Donald Trump on Monday criticized Justice Department officials over their handling of his entry ban on some Muslims. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump criticized his hand-picked Justice Department leaders on Monday, tweeting that they erred in asking the Supreme Court to review a “watered down” version of his order banning some Muslims from entering the United States.

On Thursday, the Justice Department formally asked the high court to allow a Trump-signed executive order banning entry for individuals from six Muslim-majority countries to be put in place. DOJ officials also requested that the justices determine whether Trump’s entry policy is constitutional. Several lower courts have ruled against constitutionality.

Trump Takes Travel Ban Fight to Supreme Court
The DOJ asked the justices to consider its application faster than usual

Members of the US Supreme Court are photographed on Thursday. (Rex Features via AP Images)

The Trump administration turned to the Supreme Court late Thursday in its effort to implement its revised travel ban, asking the justices to quickly reverse an appeals court ruling that is “wrong” to conclude the national security policy move was likely unconstitutional in how it treats Muslims.

The Justice Department requested that the justices consider the Trump administration's application faster than is typical — before the Supreme Court takes a three-month summer recess starting at the end of June. Five of the nine justices would have to vote to grant the request and lift the stay immediately, which would be without oral arguments and out of the view of the public.

Political Gerrymandering: Is There a Math Test for That?
Supreme Court may consider whether practice is unconstitutional

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in a North Carolina racial gerrymandering case and may take on a Wisconsin case this fall that involves partisan gerrymanders. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call File Photo)

Racial gerrymanders have been undone many times, most recently when the Supreme Court ruled against a pair of North Carolina congressional districts this week. But another case from that same state, heading into federal court next month, has a shot at eventually persuading the justices to do what they’ve never done before: strike down an election map as an unconstitutionally partisan gerrymander.

The high court ruled three decades ago that it may be unconstitutional to draw political boundaries so that one party was sure to win a disproportionate number of elections, but it’s never come up with a means for deciding when such mapmaking has become too extreme.