On Tuesday, the Heritage Foundation hosted three distinguished Supreme Court litigators. John Elwood from Vinson & Elkins, Willy Jay from Goodwin Procter, and Neal Katyal from Hogan Lovells came to discuss the Supreme Court’s rulings during their 2017-2018 term.

Each attorney provided their critical analysis on the Supreme Court’s final rulings on Masterpiece Cakeshop, Janus v. AFSCME, and President Trump’s travel ban.

The panel noticed that there is currently no unanimity in the court during this historic season of rulings. The final 5-4 outcomes of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Janus, and the travel ban clearly demonstrated the extent of that division, which the litigators thoroughly expose in their talk.

Your support makes these critical conversations possible. With American jurisprudence on the line, together we will continue to spread conservatism across the country.

Watch the event here:

What are your thoughts about SCOTUS’ latest rulings?

Comments (6)

Betty Jp Hvistendahl - July 14, 2018

The ruling on internet sales taxes is not a good ruling. It will be hard to enforce and involve a lot of extra paper work for small business. How are they going to enforce these taxes?? It represents taxation without representation. Are they going to go to another state and fine the ones who do not comply?

Len Foster - July 14, 2018

A Suggestion for Heritage:
Conservative Congressional candidates, both incumbents and newcomers, could benefit from a well written, researched and results oriented comparison of Conservative policies versus liberal policies in government (state and/or national levels). Wide circulation via letters to editor and social media would serve to motivate conservative leaning voters to Go Vote in the critical 2018 November General Election. Are there any ‘builds’ on this idea?
[P.S: The recent SCOTUS decisions were critically important and more will be needed in the future for liberties to prevail.]

Leona Loveless - July 14, 2018

I do not believe Progressive thinking Judges can rule foran unbiased opinion. Example: they all voted together. Not even one (1) favored assent to a conservative ruling. They stick together. A lesson Republicans need to embrace and get behind a President who does what he says he will do. Disgusting.

Sonie - July 15, 2018

I do believe finally the Cakeshop ruling was in the direction of free speech, and that was so good!
The 9th Circuit Court has been responsible for blocking much of the travel ban, and Obama appointed many of them.
Wouldn’t it be wise to replace those judges with some conservative ones?

Warren s Pugh - July 17, 2018

Travel ban? Please add Pakistan.
1. Diplomatic intrusions.
2. Responsible for Sheik Mubarak Ali
Gilani’s two dozen militias in U.S..
3. Poor behavior of Pakistani immigrants
in U.S. and UK+.
4. Misappropriating loans from U.S..
5. Money laundering.

Warren s Pugh - July 17, 2018

As much as the San Diego Unified School district condoned Islam in our schools because “Trump was elected”, I suspect the judge dislikes Trump and place this country at the mercy of rabid Muslims. After all the FBI, Several mid-east countries and Homeland Security rightfully claim the MB and CAIR are terrorists.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *