Supreme Court won’t hear North Carolina districting dispute

Brendan Dassey is escorted out of a Manitowoc County Circuit courtroom

‘Making A Murderer’ Subject Denied U.S. Supreme Court Appeal

Stutzman of Arlene's Flowers in Richland, Washington, refused to sell flowers to same-sex couple Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed in 2013 because of her religious beliefs, The New York Times reported.

The Supreme Court issued two gerrymandering rulings last week on narrow legal grounds in cases involving Wisconsin and Maryland but both those disputes involved allegations that districts were configured for partisan gain rather than for racial discrimination.

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with Republicans in Texas and North Carolina on Monday in two more cases on the contentious issue of politicians manipulating electoral district boundaries for political gain, known as gerrymandering.

In this session of the Supreme Court, now drawing to a close, the justices have chose to avoid a major decision on voting rights rather than send a clear message going into the 2018 midterm elections. And he says the language of the decision would seem to make it far more hard to punish a recalcitrant state by putting it back under federal supervision for the next decade, a provision left intact by the Supreme Court five years ago. "Our work to ensure LGBT equality is the law and the norm in all 50 states will continue", James Esseks, director of ACLU's LGBT and HIV Project, said in a statement. "We have also broadened the range of benefits, services and experiences that build loyalty with card members".


What do you think of the Supreme Court's decision on how to handle the anti-gay florist?

Just back after ruling in favor of a cake baker who refused to make a cake for a wedding celebration of a same-sex couple, the Supreme Court on Monday wiped away an opinion that went against a florist who declined to make an arrangement for a same-sex couple's marriage.

The apex court ordered Washington State's Supreme Court to revisit the case.

"Today's decision is immensely frustrating and disappointing". Laws requiring businesses to be open to all do not conflict with the Constitution.


"That was a very important decision because it sends a loud message to that [Washington] court that there's a good chance that they decided incorrectly, based upon the earlier decision dealing with the Phillips case", Dacus tells OneNewsNow.

The Supreme Court had put the Washington case on hold while it considered the one from Colorado.

"We are confident that the [Washington] court will again see that no business should have a right to discriminate". The commissioner had said that "religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history", including slavery and the Holocaust.

LEVITT: What any other state can take from today's decision is that if I intend to discriminate, a court may nip and tuck a bit. "In that ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court denounced government hostility toward the religious beliefs about marriage held by creative professionals like Jack and Barronelle".


A unanimous Washington Supreme Court found that the florist, Barronelle Stutzman, violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination, a state civil rights law. "That's unprecedented in Washington state in such a case". The cases were consolidated into Arlene's Flowers v. Washington.

Latest News