Judicial Leader for Prayer

Justice Sonia Sotomayor told a legal group meeting in Washington, D.C., that mistakes the Supreme Court makes can be corrected over time.

The Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has turned down a church’s appeal for a ministerial exception to a discrimination lawsuit.

In the next few days, the Supreme Court will consider whether to resolve a long-standing dispute about the power of state legislatures in federal elections that Justice Alito called “exceptionally important.”

Federal Judge Amy St. Eve requested funding to address cybersecurity, courthouse safety, and a growing workload before a House Appropriations Committee.

A Texas federal judge ruled that a University of Houston student speech policy violates the First Amendment.

Judge Esther Salas has called for Congress to extend police protections for all judges nationwide.

Federal District Judge T. Kent Wetherell ruled that Florida’s immigration lawsuit against President Biden’s administration can proceed.

Federal district Judge Angel Kelley reproved The Satanic Temple during the group’s court battle to open Boston City Council meetings with a satanic “prayer.”

The Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling for the heirs of a Holocaust survivor seeking to retrieve a painting by a French impressionist that was stolen by Nazis during World War II.

The high court’s nine justices were presented with the question of what law federal courts should use when hearing claims brought under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

Justice Elana Kagan wrote the 9-0 ruling, arguing that state law should be followed in accordance with the decision rather than federal.

“The path of our decision has been as short as the hunt for Rue Saint-Honoré was long,” Kagan said, referring to the painting sought by the heirs of a German Jewish art dealer.

The high court’s ruling does not end the dispute over the painting because the case was remanded to lower courts, but it marks a procedural win for the heirs.

Sixth Circuit Chief Judge Sutton wrote in an opinion that universal injunctions seem to take judicial power “beyond its traditionally understood uses.”