During Friday's inauguration ceremonies,while being sworn in as president, Donald Trump vowed to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
By Monday morning, Trump was being sued by an ethics watchdog for allegedly violating the Constitution.
The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is filing suit in New York City against the president for violating the emoluments clause, which prohibits government officials from accepting payments or gifts from foreign governments.
The Justice Department concluded Friday that Jared Kushner serving in his father-in-law's administration would not be a violation of federal anti-nepotism laws. read more
The Campaign Legal Center has conducted an initial analysis of the depth of partisan gerrymandering in the 2016 election, which was the third election held since the 2011 round of redistricting. With three elections' worth of data, we can now say with even more certainty that the redistricting plans in the post-2010 cycle evidence more extreme partisan gerrymandering than any other decade in modern American history. For the third time this decade, we saw huge skews in favor of either Democrats or Republicans in plans across the country.
A federal judge in Texas on Saturday issued a nationwide injunction halting enforcement of Obama administration protections for transgender and abortion-related healthcare services just one day before they were due to go into effect.
The states and nonprofits in the healthcare lawsuit allege that the regulation violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) -- which sets the rules for federal government rule-making -- and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
Because Title IX is referenced as providing the interpretation of the ACA's sex discrimination ban, O'Connor found, accordingly, that "HHS's expanded definition of sex discrimination exceeds the [Title IX] grounds" provided for in the ACA, making that provision contrary to law and a violation of the APA.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday turned back a challenge to Virginia's voter photo ID law upheld by a federal judge in Richmond this year.
"In sum, not only does the substance of (the law) not impose an undue burden on minority voting, there was no evidence to suggest racially discriminatory intent in the law's enactment," Judge Paul V. Niemeyer of the appeals court wrote.