This report discusses the Supreme Court case Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 (AFSCME). In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that "agency fee" arrangements between a union and a government employer necessarily violate the First Amendment, overruling its 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.

This report highlights many of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh's judicial opinions that have received the greatest degree of attention from legal observers. Judge Kavanaugh, whom President Trump has nominated to fill the impending Supreme Court vacancy caused by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's retirement from the Court, has amassed a voluminous record of judicial writings during his legal career. These writings are certain to be a key topic of interest as the Senate prepares to hold hearings and a possible vote on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the High Court.

This report explores the underlying policies resulting in family separation, the due process issues arguably implicated by these policies, and the political and judicial processes invoked to tackle the issue of family separation.

This report discusses the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in the United States v. Suarez case, that a minimal impact on commerce is sufficient to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of the federal weapons of mass destruction statute. This decision seems to reflect a growing willingness of federal appellate courts to read broadly Congress's Commerce Clause powers.

This report discusses the U.S. Court of Appeals case United States v. Noel, in which Noel challenged his conviction for seizing an American citizen in Haiti to hold for ransom.

This report discusses the case of Baker v. Spath, in which Brigadier General (Gen.) John G. Baker, Chief Defense Counsel of the Military Commission System, prevailed in his habeas case against a military commission judge who sentenced him to 21 days' confinement and fined him $1,000 for contempt.

This report discusses the interpretation of foreign law, from routine breach of contract and tort claims to complex cases implicating the judicial branch's role in international affairs. In Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., the Supreme Court announced the standard of deference for U.S. federal courts to apply when considering a foreign government's interpretation of its own law.

This report discusses the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court and what his confirmation to the Court would mean. The report includes seven noteworthy opinions written by Judge Kavanaugh while serving on the D.C. Circuit Court.

This report lists key Congressional Research Service (CRS) products on the judicial decisions of Justice Kennedy and Judge Kavanaugh, as well as information on Supreme Court vacancies and nominations.

This report discusses the controversy regarding transgender individuals serving in the military, President Trump's memorandums on the subject, and the four lawsuits challenging the President's memorandums.

This report discusses the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which was first presented to the states in 1972 and has been ratified by 37 states, most recently by Illinois in May 2018.

This report provides an overview of mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) in general and a sketch of the terms of the U.S.-Russia MLAT in particular.

This report discusses the proposed merger of AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) with Time Warner Inc. (Time Warner), after one of the most closely watched antitrust trials in recent memory. This report first outlines current Section 7 doctrine and then discusses the particularities of the government's case against AT&T and Time Warner and the court's decision to allow the transaction to proceed. Finally, it analyzes the decision's implications for the media industry and future antitrust cases, and identify potential considerations for Congress.

This report discusses the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Gill v. Whitford. On June 18, 2018 the Supreme Court ruled that in order to establish standing to sue upon a claim of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering on the basis of vote dilution, challengers must allege injuries to their interests as voters in individual districts. Topics discussed include Supreme Court precedent, case background, and implications for the future.