As more and more young people become interested in what is going on in the Supreme Court, there has been a call for cameras to be allowed inside the deliberations. With an especially important verdict on gay marriage rights for all 50 states coming in April, as well as many other heavy decisions, it seems like there’s no time like the present to install cameras in the hallowed halls’ however, two justices–Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor–recently spoke against the move, making it unclear if the American people will ever have a glimpse into the court’s proceedings.

There is such transparency for some courts and cases–especially those involving celebrities and high-profile individuals. A group of media and legal organizations have joined together to form an organization called the Coalition for Court Transparency, and it petitioned Chief Justice John Roberts to start televising the arguments occurring in the nation’s capital. His response? “There are no plans to change the Court’s current practices.”

Throughout the last two decades or so, the justices have given many different reasons for banning cameras inside of the courtroom, including: cameras will encourage “showy” testimonials, the media will use embarrassing sound bites, or that people will misunderstand and judge without looking into the details; however, there are some who speak of the importance of having some transparency within the Supreme Court because it would encourage Americans to learn more about their judicial system: “There’s a real hunger out there from people to know more about the Supreme Court and the justices,” said Ariane de Vogue, Supreme Court correspondent for ABC News. “I think it would be a marvelous educational opportunity.”

Read on to learn about the considerations that must be taken into account during the debate over whether or not to put cameras in the Supreme Court.

Why should we break tradition?

The Supreme Court stands virtually alone when it comes to cameras inside the courtroom. States make their own rules when it comes to this issue, but many do allow them–as do the highest courts in some nations. Some states even livestream proceedings.

Jerry Goldman, director of the Oyez Project at the Chicago-Kent College of Law at the Illinois Institute of Technology says that the Supreme Court is simply behind the times and always will be unless there is some new blood within its walls: “It’s just uncomfortable with change,” said Goldman, whose website catalogs oral argument audio. “They’re always in the caboose.”

Another professor, Sonja West from the University of Georgia School of Law, sees it a different way: the Supreme Court Justices fear breaking something that already works well, afraid what such a monumental change will bring: “They feel very much like the guardians of a very important institution,” said West, who wrote about the Court’s camera policy in the Brigham Young University Law Review. West also says that the Court is so staunchly traditional because of the respect that shroud of secrecy gives–and respect is a main source of power.

Yet another professor, this one of Constitutional Law at Georgia State, Eric Segall, argues that because the justices are government officials, they should not have the choice of whether or not to be transparent. He suggests that the Court should have the burden of proving why cameras should not be allowed, and not the other way around. “This is a public hearing,” Segall said. “It’s open to the public. It’s material. It’s relevant, and people want to televise it. We should be allowed to see it.”

“We have three branches of government,” Dahlia Lithwick, who covers the Supreme Court for Slate, said about camera access. “Two of them are totally transparent, and one of them is completely secret, and that’s a problem.”

Why might the Supreme Court not want cameras?

There have been a few arguments made repeatedly by the Supreme Court justices and those who support them in their calls for privacy. Each one has reasons why it’s a good idea to retain some mystery, but there are also reasons why the need for transparency may overcome the possible adverse effects.

The Public Will Misunderstand What is Going On

Justices have traditionally opposed cameras because people will not understand the role of oral arguments and will jump to conclusions and “root” for an outcome of the case. Justice Scalia has even gone on record to say that the complexity and interworking of the law “is why the University of Chicago Law Review is not sold at a 7-Eleven.”

Sotomayor told a reporter that arguments should not be televised in part because most viewers “don’t take the time to appreciate what the Court is doing.”

However, to some, this view has it backward. Broadcasts of arguments would help the public learn about the Court’s operations, according to Segall. “The more we see Justice [Antonin] Scalia being obnoxious, the more we see Justice [Anthony] Kennedy acting like a law professor, the more we see Justice [Clarence] Thomas sitting there and doing nothing, the more we have insight into the people who work for us.”

Still, there is a chance that people will misunderstand what is happening with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has always had problems when it comes to public opinion with consistent periods of low approval ratings, it is easy to see why that could be a fear. A simple misunderstanding could create mistrust between the public and the Court, undermining their effectiveness.

Even for those who are college educated, law isn’t typically a mandatory course like math or even political science. It will be difficult for the general public to grasp some of what is happening within the Supreme Court.

Picking and Choosing

Justices have also feared that putting video cameras into the proceedings will allows journalists to take quotes from the hearing and use them as sound bites for laughs and shock.

Kennedy once said he does not want the Court to become part of “the national entertainment network.”

And Scalia told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “[F]or every ten people who sat through our proceedings gavel to gavel, there would be 10,000 who would see nothing but a thirty-second takeout from one of the proceedings, which I guarantee you would not be representative of what we do.”

Pretty much every news network uses videos of politicians in order to prove points–and taking things out of context seems to be the norm. So, is there something to be said about fearing the editing process? Of course–as with anything. However, it will be up to the journalist to uphold ethics when reporting the news. What comes out of the mouths of the Justices isn’t always how they truly feel or how they want the case to go. Any footage that is taken from the proceedings will have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Cameras and Audio

In addition to video imaging from within the Supreme Court, there has also been a ban on audio recording from within the chambers. In the past, audio recordings have been doctored and then misreported by news outlets, leading to headaches. That has slackened some, and audio recordings are now available after the verdict has been announced. Sometimes they will release same-day audio for high-profile cases, but this is extremely rare.

Notably, one can still get same-day written transcripts of the oral arguments and opinion announcements; however, these do not take things like tone and delivery into consideration. The Justices have learned to choose their words wisely so that they do not come across wrong on paper.

Sotomayor discussed the problems with all reporting to The New York Times, saying:

I don’t think most viewers take the time to actually delve into either the briefs or the legal arguments to appreciate what the court is doing,” she said. “They speculate about, oh, the judge favors this point rather than that point. Very few of them understand what the process is, which is to play devil’s advocate.

It obviously took a while to get to the point where audio recordings are allowed as well, and it might seem like they’re pretty much the same thing as video recordings; however, they’re probably less likely to be mass-distributed on platforms such as news shows, and therefore, less likely to be misconstrued.

Performance Issues

There are also concerns that if cameras are brought into the Supreme Court, the advocates will pander to them. Instead of focusing on the merit of their arguments, they will try to be more convincing and flashy. That being said, that worry gives very little credit to the attorneys arguing the cases–their arguments would still be what the Supreme Court decided on, so there would be little value in creating a performance for outside audiences.

Conclusion

Putting cameras in the Supreme Court is going to take some work from everyone involved. It isn’t going to be something that can have a seamless transition and just happen overnight. Instead, it is something that journalists, viewers, lawyers, and justices will have to come to terms with, and change their behaviors accordingly.

Whatever the change is, there needs to be more transparency in a system that is broken. The Coalition for Court Transparency claims:

Currently, to attend Supreme Court hearings, individuals must stand in line outside the building and wait to be ushered in. There are roughly 400 seats in the courtroom, only a fraction of which are available to the public. That means countless Americans hoping to view the arguments are unable to, especially in cases that have broad public interest, such as the marriage equality, Obamacare, voting rights, and affirmative action cases in recent terms. For these types of cases, interested citizens must often line up hours, if not days, in advance of the arguments. In some instances they have to compete with “line-standers” whose employers have been paid thousands of dollars to hold a powerful or wealthy person’s place in line.

Stay tuned for the next few months as the changes are sure to come quickly.

Resources

Primary

Oyez Project: Latest 

Supreme Court: Transcripts and Recordings of Oral Arguments

Additional 

BYU Law Review: The Monster in the Courtroom

Slate: Amicus: Cameras in the Courtroom

Open SCOTUS: Coalition Letter

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: Holding Out Against Cameras at the Supreme Court

National Constitution Center: Justices’ Comments Cast More Doubts on Supreme Court Cameras 

USA Today: Justices Rock it on the Road, If You Can Find Them

Blaze: New Push to Get Video Cameras in Supreme Court

NPR: Once Under Wraps, Supreme Court Audio Trove Now Online

Slate: Punch and Judge Judy

Tampa Bay Times: Sotomayor No Longer Favors Video Cameras at Supreme Court

CNN: Supreme Court Agrees to Take on Same-Sex Marriage Issue

Slate: Supreme Court Justices Are Not Really Judges

Daily Signal: Public Opinion and the Supreme Court

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Televised Trials: Should Cameras Be Allowed in the Supreme Court? appeared first on Law Street.

There were a lot of big news stories this year, from the Olympics in early 2014 to the ongoing Sony hack. Read on to learn about the top 15 news stories of 2014.

1. The Winter Olympics: $how Me the $ochi

Image courtesy of Atos via Flickr

The 2014 Olympics were hosted in Sochi, Russia, this winter, and the entire event was marked by controversy after controversy. The Russians were chosen to host the Olympics because of an impressive, expensive bid to the International Olympic Committee (IOC). However, the chaos of the 2014 Games left many wondering whether or not cash should be the deciding factor in the selection process.

2. Malaysian Airplane Crash: Who’s Liable?

Image courtesy of abdallahh via Flickr

In March, the world watched as a Malaysian Airlines flight disappeared, and many families were left devastated. It was a horrifying tragedy, but many were wondering who was to blame for the catastrophe, or more appropriately, who was liable? Given that much is still unknown about the crash, the legal questions are far from being answered.

3. Punishing Donald Sterling Is About to Get a Lot Harder

Image courtesy of Michael via Flickr

Clippers owner Donald Sterling came under fire after an audio recording of him making racist statements came to light. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver levied a notable punishment against Donald Sterling. However, given the unprecedented level of punishment, there were significant legal concerns.

4. An Open Letter to Shailene Woodley: What Every Not-a-Feminist Needs to Hear 

Image courtesy of Red Carpet Report on Mingle Media Tv

One of the most talked about stars of 2014 was Shailene Woodley–she starred in films such as Divergent and The Fault in Our Stars. However, she also made headlines for a less flattering reason–for saying that she wasn’t a feminist. Unfortunately, she had the definition of feminism wrong.

Answer Emma Watson’s Call for Gender Equality

Image courtesy of EyesonFire89 via Flickr

However, another movie starlet, Emma Watson of Harry Potter fame, gave an amazing speech this year about the importance of feminism and equality. Unlike Woodley, her definition of feminism was spot-on, and she made a great appeal.

5. SCOTUS Steps Up Amid Execution Controversy

Image courtesy of [Ken Piorkowski via Flickr]

6. Trigger Warnings Creep Off the Web and Into the Classroom

Image courtesy of OpenClips via Pixabay

Trigger warnings are a common sight on websites, in order to alert readers to content they may find troubling. However, trigger warnings started to make their way off the internet and possibly onto college syllabi. That change has led to concerns that trigger warnings may end up creating optional content in college courses.

7. The Dark Side of the World Cup: Corruption, Bribery, and Civil Unrest

Image courtesy of Amil Delic via Flickr

This summer, the world watched as the 2014 World Cup took place in Brazil. But, much like the 2014 Olympic Games, the World Cup had problems with corruption, lack of organization, and bribing scandals. Not only was the World Cup an interesting look into the the politics of Brazil, but it says a lot about what may happen at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.

Oh, and that guy who bit another player: The People vs. Luis Suarez

Image courtesy of [George via Flickr]

8. The Senate Torture Report: Government Infighting Over Release

Image courtesy of Justin Norman via Flickr

The Senate torture report was finally released a few weeks ago, but there was a lot of infighting prior to the release. Major players included the U.S. Senate, particularly the Senate Intelligence Committee, the CIA, and the White House.

9. We Should All be Upset About What’s Going on in Ferguson: Here’s Why

Image courtesy of Elvert Barnes via Flickr

In early August, a young man named Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, Missouri, by Officer Darren Wilson. The following weeks led to protests over a few different topics, including police militarization, racial profiling, and First Amendment issues.

10. Ebola and America’s Fears

Image courtesy of CDC Global via Flickr

This year, Ebola has killed thousands in Western Africa, particularly in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea. Globalization and international travel led to a case making it to the United States, sparking fear around the nation.

11. Strikes Against ISIS in Syria: Shaky Ground for Obama Administration

Image courtesy of Official US Navy Page via Flickr

The U.S. has been waging war against ISIS since it emerged in Syria and Iraq. Early this fall, the U.S. and some Middle Eastern allies bombed ISIS. Like any international action, the U.S. needed to be able to legally justify their actions, but that may be easier said than done.

12. The Washington Redskins: What’s Next in the Name Debate?

Image courtesy of Keith Allison via Flickr

The Washington D.C. NFL team is called the “Redskins,” a name that has received ire for its offensive origin. Journalists have begun to refer to the team by almost any other name, and this summer the US Patent office cancelled the team’s trademark. Whether or not the name will ever be changed remains to be seen.

13. The CIA: How to Get Away With Torture

Image courtesy of takomabibelot via Flickr

That Senate Intelligence torture report was finally released, and it was a disturbing revelation into the practices of the CIA. However, despite the fact that torture is illegal internationally, it’s doubtful that the U.S. will ever see any legal ramifications.

14. Australian Hostage Situation Ends: A Community Stands Together

Image courtesy of Corey Leopold via Flickr

Earlier this month, there was a horrifying hostage situation in Sydney, Australia. But the aftermath was heartening, as Australians banded together to show the world that the actions of one mad man does not justify discrimination on a wide scale.

Australians School the World on How To Not Be Racist

Image courtesy of Chris Beckett via Flickr

Here’s a further look into the amazing Australian compassion after the Sydney hostage situation. The hashtag #IllRideWithYou was created, in order to provide support for the Australian Muslim community. Citizens of Sydney offered company to Australian Muslims who needed to travel on public transportation without fear of discrimination.

15. Disturbing New Developments in the Continuing Sony Hacking Scandal

Image courtesy of The City Project via Flickr

One of the biggest stories of the end of 2014 was the Sony Hacking scandal, when a hacking group called the Guardians of Peace (GOP) made its way into Sony’s computer system. The story escalated quickly, as the hacking group demanded that a movie called The Interview not be released, or drastic action would be taken.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Top 15 Top News Stories of 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act, when applied to closely held corporations such as Hobby Lobby, violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion for the majority, which also included Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Anthony Kennedy. The opinion was a narrow one–Justice Alito made it clear that they were ruling on the specifics of this case–not opening the floodgates for other religious challenges. His opinion also stressed that this ruling only applies to closely held corporations with fewer than five majority owners. But despite the narrow ruling, this is a clear victory for Hobby Lobby.

The Background

In order to understand how the court arrived at this opinion, we must first understand RFRA, the law under which the contraceptive mandate was challenged. That law states that, “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” An exception to this law can only be provided if it shows a compelling governmental interest and that governmental interest is achieved using the least restrictive means possible. This means the interest must be achieved in a way that least violates our First Amendment right to religious freedom. Therefore, in order for Hobby Lobby to win this case they had to:

1)   Show that a corporation could practice religion and be considered a “person” under this law;

2)   Show that Hobby Lobby’s ability to exercise religion had been substantially burdened by the contraceptive mandate;

3)   Either show that the contraceptive mandate was not a compelling governmental interest or prove that it was not achieved in the least restrictive means possible.

The Decision

The majority opinion held that a corporation could practice religion because its administration could make business decisions based off of religious beliefs. The majority also claimed that because companies do donate to charities, they are capable of caring about values that transcend profits–such as religion. Finally, they pointed out that in certain cases, Congress has specifically added clauses into laws specifying that corporations would not qualify, and would have done exactly that if they did not intend for corporations to be covered by RFRA.

On the other hand, the dissent, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, argued that a corporation cannot exercise religion because there is no clear way to decide who determines its religion. Would it be 51 percent of the shareholders? Or the majority shareholder? The CEO? This objection is why the majority applied this ruling only to closely held corporations with five or fewer owners, such as Hobby Lobby. These are often family-owned and can feasibly run their company based off of religious issues.

The owners of Hobby Lobby, the Green family, believe the contraceptive drugs they were required to include in their employees’ health coverage are similar to abortions. Their religious beliefs state that life starts at conception. Therefore, their ability to exercise their religion is substantially burdened by the contraceptive mandate.

Once the majority established that Hobby Lobby could be considered a person under RFRA and that it faced a substantial religious burden, they had to determine if the contraceptive mandate could be considered a legal exception. The majority conceded that providing contraceptive coverage was a compelling government interest, but also said that it was not done in the least restrictive way. They assert that because there is a penalty for not providing the contraceptives, the Greens were forced to either act against their religion or pay a significant fine. The majority opinion says that this is not the least restrictive way to provide contraception coverage, as the government could just provide the contraceptives itself and allow the Greens to respect their beliefs.

Another argument brought up in the dissent is that this ruling could lead to religious exemptions for other issues, such as coverage for immunizations and blood transfusions. However, the majority held that they were only ruling on the contraception mandate, stating that this ruling does not mean they would rule the same way for any other health care challenge under RFRA. The opinion specifically cites immunizations as an example of governmental interest that is compelling and is reached by the least restrictive means possible.

The Impact 

Now that we understand the ruling, let’s examine its impact, particularly on the Affordable Care Act. If we look at the ACA’s overall ability to provide healthcare, the impact is minimal. The ruling only strikes down one mandate, and says the government can still provide contraceptives itself. So in a way, it could expand governmental coverage of healthcare. Where this hurts the ACA is in the political battlefield, where the fact this was a very narrow ruling means almost nothing. All that matters is that the Democrat’s health care law overreached. This issue could very well serve as a rallying point for conservatives in the 2014 mid-term elections.

Already there are headlines popping up that make it seem like the Supreme Court ruled against the ACA. But at the end of the day, all the Supreme Court did was curb a small portion of the contraception mandate. They didn’t rule any mandate unconstitutional. They just provided a religious exception, while still leaving routes open for women to get the coverage the ACA promises.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Nate Grigg via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hobby Lobby Wins Big, but Obamacare Doesn’t Really Lose appeared first on Law Street.

In a last minute stay, Justice Samuel Alito ordered the immediate halt to a Missouri man’s execution. Russell Bucklew, who was convicted of murder, kidnapping, and rape in 1996, was scheduled to be executed Wednesday evening, but his attorneys had successfully appealed to delay the execution on the grounds that the intended drug cocktail can create the same complications as the one used on an Oklahoma death row inmate earlier this month. That execution caused massive controversy after the inmate ended up seizing and having a heart attack instead of the usual quick death.

The Supreme Court usually keeps its nose out of execution cases, which makes Alito’s action very rare. Opponents of the drug mixtures that are currently used on death row inmates may herald this as a victory. Traditional drugs that used to execute inmates are in short supply, forcing prisons to resort to mixing drugs together from companies that are not very anxious to reveal their sources. In a Georgia, the state Supreme Court ruled against a death row inmate suing to find out where his killer drugs were coming from. With that information, the inmate’s lawyers argued, they can then proceed with investigations into whether the drugs being supplied would constitute cruel and unusual punishment; however, the Georgia Supreme Court decided 5-2 that protection from harassment for the pharmaceutical company was more important than the right to know where drugs came from.

With Alito’s stay, capital punishment is set to become the next legal debate on the national stage. As capital punishment continues, there is greater outcry as to why it is acceptable to use shady drugs supplied by anonymous pharmaceutical companies. After all, isn’t it cruel and unusual that inmates are not being told where their killer drugs are coming from? Maybe the Supreme Court can decide.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Ken Piorkowski via Wiipedia].

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Steps Up Amid Execution Controversy appeared first on Law Street.

Town of Greece v. Galloway began oral arguments before the Supreme Court this week. Greece is a small city located just north of Rochester, New York. For the last 14 years, the city of Greece has begun each town council meetings with a prayer, almost exclusively Christian in nature. Each meeting, a different cleric would come before the body and offer up a prayer to the council members and any observers.

In 2008, two retired women living in the town, Linda Stephens and Susan Galloway, complained that these prayers were always Christian, and seemed to align the town with Christianity. Stephens is an atheist, and Galloway is Jewish. The town did respond at first, inviting leaders of other faiths to come in and lead the prayers—including Jewish, Baha’i, and Wiccan. But that was not enough to make up for approximately 10 years of solely Christian prayers, and after those notable outliers, the town returned to mainly Christian speakers.

So, Stephens and Galloway sued their town, contending that Greece has violated the Constitution. The issue is not that the town council meetings are beginning with prayers; the ability to do so was established under the 1983 Supreme Court Case Marsh v. Chambers.  However, Marsh also stated that it’s only legal to begin a meeting with a prayer if the “government does not act with improper motive in selecting prayer-givers or exploit the prayer opportunity to proselytize, advance, or disparage any one faith or belief.” Stephens and Galloway are arguing that by choosing only Christian prayers, the town of Greece has broken those constraints. After a series of contrasting appeals, the case has made it to the Supreme Court.

Oral arguments began on Wednesday, and there have already been some interesting conversations. My guess is that the Supreme Court will stick to precedent, but with this cast of characters on the Court, it’s always hard to predict. Some of the justices who offered questions or comments seem to be suspicious of Greece’s case; perpetual swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy stated, “well, the essence of the argument is we’ve always done it this way, which has some — some force to it. But it seems to me that your argument begins and ends there.” Justice Elena Kagan deviated from purely First Amendment issues and pointed out that we’re all entitled to equal protection under the Constitution, regardless of religious beliefs. Chief Justice John Roberts raised interesting thoughts about the context of tradition in public life. Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia waxed poetic about how no prayer will every satisfy everyone 100 percent of the time. It’s important to note that another player in this case includes the Obama Administration, which is standing on Greece’s side. Deputy Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn was there to advocate the administration’s views.

The balance of faith and secularity in the public sphere is always a contentious topic. It seems like every couple of years there is another instance of a battle over religion in a public school, whether it stems from the use of prayer or the reference to God in “The Star Spangled Banner.” And every single time this issue comes up, there does not seem to be an absolutely right or wrong answer—any sort of balancing test is wobbly at best. There are always people who will be offended, but there’s also always a line that is very easily crossed. The Court will most likely not be able to solve these debates completely, but some guidance would be helpful as our society becomes more religious and culturally diverse in faith.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Michael Peligro via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Considers Prayer in Public Life appeared first on Law Street.