Search results for: Gorsuch

The White House, HHS, DOJ, and other federal agencies have been issuing statements and policy positions under existing law at a steady pace.

Scholars at the Ethics and Public Policy Center today commented on the Supreme Court’s historic ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s…

On what legitimate theory can the dissenting justices continue to dawdle?

Above all, the superb quality of the draft is compelling evidence that it is genuine.

With the Equality Act facing difficult odds in the Senate, the Biden administration has imposed its gender identity policies through its regulatory and enforcement powers. These policies largely ignore competing interests or rights of women, children, and religious organizations and persons.

If Roe goes, the pro-life movement can begin where it left off in 1973, working to convince fellow citizens (especially in blue states like mine) that we owe dependent and vulnerable unborn children what every human being is due: hospitality, respect and care.

EPPC Distinguished Senior Fellow Ed Whelan offers his initial impressions of oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

There is plenty of room for methodological disputes within originalism, but a recent critique of the dominant originalism is unpersuasive.

Last night the Supreme Court denied abortion providers’ beyond–audacious request for emergency relief against the Texas Heartbeat Act by a 5–4 vote. The feebleness of the four dissents shows that the denial should have been 9–0.

In our pluralistic society, the answer to our disagreements cannot be to strip grandmothers of their life’s savings because they refuse to, in effect, say things, or use their personal gifts to assist others in saying things, that are contrary to their beliefs.

After Fulton, the Sixth Circuit’s compelling interest analysis in Harris Funeral Homes cannot stand. Courts cannot credit the alleged compelling government interest of non-discrimination by ignoring the constitutional guarantee of free exercise.

With its 9-0 ruling in favor of the Fulton plaintiffs, the Supreme Court is saying people with sincere faith-informed understandings of social issues that cut against the grain of secularist thought aren’t to be treated as bigots, and government needs to back off.