John Roberts

Five justices chose to ignore legal procedure and precedent to uphold a law that flies in the face of Roe v. Wade. Why wouldn’t they do the same when it comes to Obergefell v. Hodges?

“You can’t say that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Until recently, that’s what the vast majority of Americans thought. Now, it’s considered bigotry.”

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia is a case that has thousands of organizations and politicians choosing sides because “there are lots of potential consequences.”

The odds are against SCOTUS outright overturning marriage equality – but the conservative majority will do everything in its power to erode it by granting religious conservatives free rein to ignore the law.

The state’s strong conservative leadership would have you believe that marriage equality inevitably caused legislators’ complex relationship with plural marriages.

The Senate has lost its integrity due to the leadership of Sen. Mitch McConnell. It’s time to define his actions accordingly.

If the end result is 4-1-4 in favor of Aimee Stephens with a narrow, positive interpretation of Title VII being the 1, I’ll cheer.

A Supreme Court justice doesn’t have to listen to arguments in person to make a decision.

This year, two of Bush’s Supreme Court appointees could decide that federal law doesn’t protect LGBTQ people.

If the court rules against LGBTQ rights, trans people who live outside of cities and states with inclusive nondiscrimination laws will need legal umbrellas. Here is one that some, though not all, might be able to use.