Today the Supreme Court hears oral argument in Van Buren v. United States, which presents the Court with its first opportunity to interpret the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), a 1986 federal statute that punishes unauthorized access of computers. The Committee for Justice filed an amicus brief with the Court in support of Nathan Van Buren, a police officer who was charged with a felony under the CFAA for obtaining a license plate number for personal reasons from a law enforcement database he was otherwise authorized to use.

We applaud tonight's confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, which is historic for at least two reasons. One, Barrett is the first female conservative justice in the nation's history, despite President Reagan's best intentions when he nominated Sandra Day O’Connor to the Court. Two, for the first time since the 1930's, there is the potential for a true conservative majority on the Supreme Court. While Democrats and the media have long spoken of a "conservative" Court, their assumption that Justices Roberts and Kennedy were conservatives was a fiction. At very least, Barrett's confirmation will go a long way to reassure Americans discouraged by a string of liberal, activist decisions at the end o...

We applaud the Senate Judiciary Committee's approval today of Judge Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court nomination. Democrats' childish tactic of boycotting the vote succeeded only in allowing history to record that Barrett was approved unanimously by the Committee. This was just the latest in a series of failed Democrat tactics to derail her nomination.

After two days of answering questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Barrett has clearly demonstrated several things. One is the reason why her intellect and character is widely admired across the legal community. Another is her commitment to textualism and originalism, principles of judicial interpretation that require that our Constitution and other laws be objectively interpreted as written.

The following is the statement of Committee for Justice president Curt Levey on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court:

Washington, D.C. -- The Committee for Justice applauds President Trump for selecting Judge Barrett, a nominee who is committed to conservative judicial principles and whose intellect and character is widely admired across the legal community.

Conservatives are excited by Judge Barrett's nomination not because she will vote the "right" way on particular issues, but because she is committed to principles such as textualism and originalism, which require that our Constitution and other laws be interpreted as written, rather than twisted to serve the policy preferences of judges and other elites. Barrett'...

Given the great success of Trump's 2016 list, many election analysts have been asking why Joe Biden has not released a list of potential Supreme Court nominees. One reason is likely that the Democratic base, which has moved sharply to the left, would only be satisfied by potential nominees radical enough to scare the swing voters Biden will need in November. Another reason may well be that as Biden tries to portray himself as a uniter, he doesn't want to remind voters that, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he presided over the shameful Senate hearings for GOP Supreme Court nominees Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork, hearings that ushered in the divisive, highly partisan judicial confirmation process we see today.

From a conservative perspective, Chief Justice John Roberts is now zero for four on the major culture war issues decided by the Supreme Court this term—abortion, gun rights, LGBT rights and DACA—after voting today to strike down Louisiana's abortion law in June Medical Services.

The Administration cannot order the FCC and FTC, both independent agencies, to take any actions. While the executive order's more limited approach – petitioning the FCC for rulemaking and directing the FCC to 'consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law' – is permissible, the FCC rules and FTC enforcement actions that result may be unlawful. Depending on the details, they may well violate the First Amendment rights of social media platforms or interpret Section 230 in a manner inconsistent with the statutory text, its intent, and its interpretation by the courts.

Senator Schumer reached a new low today 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.

The following is a statement by Committee for Justice president Curt Levey on today's Supreme Court argument in June Medical Services v. Russo, a challenge to the constitutionality of the Louisiana Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, which requires doctors who perform abortions to have local hospital admitting privileges...

The following is a statement from Curt Levey, the Committee for Justice's president and one of the attorneys on the brief...

This campaign of pressure is no doubt motivated both by Democrats' exaggerated fears of what the Court's post-Kennedy center-right majority will do and by the relatively large number of hot-button cases before the Supreme Court this term. Among the most important such cases are the New York gun case and today's employment cases.

Their embarrassing overreach could have been avoided had they bothered to read the Times piece, which openly relied on hearsay provided by anonymous sources concerning a supposed witness who just happened to be an adversary of Kavanaugh during the Ken Starr investigation. Likewise if the would-be presidents had, like others, requested an advance copy of the book on which the story is based. The book reveals that the alleged victim has no memory of the incident.

Chief Justice John Roberts disappointed conservatives today – to a degree not seen since he saved ObamaCare in 2012 – when he sided with the Court's four liberals to second guess the Trump Administration's reasons for adding a citizenship question to the census, likely ensuring that the question will not be on the census given the looming deadline for printing the forms.

The following is a statement from the Committee for Justice on the Supreme Court 9-0 ruling today in Kisor v. Wilkie, upholding but limiting the doctrine of Auer deference, which instructs courts to defer to an administrative agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations. The case involved the Veteran Administration's denial of disability benefits.