The Supreme Court interpreted Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination in employment to encompass discrimination based on sexual orientation or identity. The majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, relied heavily on the text of the 1964 statute. Too heavily – to the exclusion of legislative intent – some critics say. Our panel of Supreme Court and civil rights experts will discuss whether the Court's opinion was a work of principled textualism or an example of judicial activism.

This week, the Supreme Court interpreted Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination in employment to encompass discrimination based on sexual orientation or identity. The majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, relied heavily on the text of the 1964 statute. Too heavily – to the exclusion of legislative intent – some critics say. Our panel of Supreme Court and civil rights experts will discuss whether the Court's opinion was a work of principled textualism or an example of judicial activism.

A Supreme Court term that saw historic firsts—oral argument by telephone and live audio—is drawing to a close. Terms usually end with a bang, and this bang will be louder than most because so many important cases remain undecided. Our panel of Supreme Court experts discusses the Court's impending decisions and the issues on the line, including (to name just a few): What restrictions on abortion are permissible? Do federal discrimination laws apply to gender identity and sexual orientation? Can educational tax credits go to religious schools? And can New York and the U.S. House of Representatives get their hands on President Trump's financial records?

A Supreme Court term that saw historic firsts—oral argument by telephone and live audio—is drawing to a close. Terms usually end with a bang, and this bang will be louder than most because so many important cases remain undecided. Our panel of Supreme Court experts will discuss the Court's impending decisions and the issues on the line, including (to name just a few): What restrictions on abortion are permissible? Do federal discrimination laws apply to gender identity and sexual orientation? Can educational tax credits go to religious schools? And can New York and the U.S. House of Representatives get their hands on President Trump's financial records?

"Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words," which tells the story of Clarence Thomas's journey from poverty and segregation in the South to the Supreme Court, debuts on national television this week. To mark the occasion, our panelists—former law clerks for Justice Thomas and the author of Understanding Clarence Thomas: The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Restoration—will discuss his nearly thirty years on the Court, his approach to the law, and how his earlier life has shaped his jurisprudence.

On Wednesday, May 6, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing for one of President Donald Trump's most important judicial nominees. Judge Justin Walker, who currently serves on the U.S. District Court in Kentucky, has been nominated to fill one of the infrequent vacancies on the U.S Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the most important court in the nation after the Supreme Court. The D.C. Circuit hears many of the cases that determine the limits on the authority of the president and executive agencies, and the relationship between the three branches. Because of this court's importance, Senate Democrats and their allies are already fiercely attacking Walker's nomination.

In April 2020, President Trump nominated Judge Justin Walker, currently serving on the U.S. District Court in Kentucky, to a pending vacancy on the U.S Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Below is information on Judge Walker and the D.C. Circuit.

In this virtual panel, experts on judicial nominations and the federal courts will share their views on the role the Court will play in this year's presidential election. Among the many questions they'll tackle are whether the Supreme Court issue will work in President Trump's favor again and whether Joe Biden is likely to release a list of potential nominees, as well as some novel questions brought about by COVID-19's impact on the Court's calendar and its generation of voting disputes that the Justices may address this fall.

Supreme Court nominations and the issues before the Court have played an important role in most recent presidential elections. This was especially true in 2016, when Donald Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees, paired with a vacancy on the Court, is widely credited with being a decisive factor in Trump's victory. In this virtual panel, experts on judicial nominations and the federal courts will share their views on the role the Court will play in this year's presidential election. Among the many questions they'll tackle are whether the Supreme Court issue will work in President Trump's favor again and whether Joe Biden is likely to release a list of potential nominees, as well as some novel questions brought about by COVID-19's impact on the Court's calendar and its generation of voting disputes that the Justices may address this fall.

Ashley Baker, the Director of Public Policy at The Committee for Justice, said Schumer "reached a new low when he stood on the Supreme Court steps and threatened Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. His political posturing outside the court was a flagrant attempt to influence the two newest Justices in the building."

Another reason the Supreme Court hasn’t been a focal point is largely because Democratic-appointed justices are a safe 'liberal' vote, said Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice. He said Republican voters are more motivated by court vacancies since they have been let down by GOP-appointed justices who turn out to be more moderate on the bench than expected, such as retired Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who reigned as the court’s 'swing vote' until he retired in 2018.

Last year, the Committee for Justice continued to play an influential role in holding judges and politicians accountable to the constitution. We worked to reclaim the judiciary from activist judges, confront the unaccountable administrative state, and oppose calls to restructure the Supreme Court.

Still, it likely will take years to fully evaluate whether Mr. Trump truly transformed the 9th Circuit, said Curt Levey, president of the Committee of Justice, which promotes constitutionalist positions on legal and policy issues. He noted that most senior Republican-appointed judges aren’t as conservative as Mr. Trump’s picks because senators used to be able to block federal appeals court nominees.

Kavanaugh's keynote address represents an indication that he feels less of a need to keep a low profile.

The overt smears of Lawrence VanDyke and the continued mistreatment of conservative-leaning judicial nominees by the ABA is reprehensible. The ABA should no longer have a privileged place at the table in assessing judicial nominations.