The Hill News

The Supreme Court just handed the political parties their best day in a generation

1 hour agoCenter

The Supreme Court's decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC has strengthened the political parties, allowing them to spend without limit in direct coordination with their candidates, while still maintaining transparency and accountability.

Read Full Story at Source

Compare Perspectives

Found 8 stories

It’s Time for Maine to Ditch Platner — But Not the Politics That Won Over Voters

The Intercept

1 hour ago

It’s Time for Maine to Ditch Platner — But Not the Politics That Won Over Voters

Platner has lost the moral right to speak for the left. The movement that energized Maine’s voters should choose his replacement. The post It’s Time for Maine to Ditch Platner — But Not the Politics That Won Over Voters appeared first on The Intercept.

Far Left

Read →

Supreme Court financial disclosures reveal how their books add to their income

NPR Topics: News

2 hours ago

Supreme Court financial disclosures reveal how their books add to their income

The Supreme Court annual financial reports shed light on the justices' gifts, travel and personal lives.

Center

Read →

Trump asks Supreme Court for rehearing over $5M E Jean Carroll civil judgment

Latest Political News on Fox News

3 hours ago

Trump asks Supreme Court for rehearing over $5M E Jean Carroll civil judgment

Lawyers for Trump filed a rehearing petition after the Supreme Court rejected his appeal of the $5 million E. Jean Carroll civil judgment last week.

Right

Read →

Reason.com

3 hours ago

"AI Is the Democratic Party's Next Villain"

"We analyze roughly 280,000 candidate fundraising emails to trace the rise of anti-billionaire populism in the Democratic party and see how it is slowly merging with a new kind of anti-AI populism."

Center Right

Read →

Trump ordered to hand over E. Jean Carroll's $5M after losing Supreme Court appeal: report

Raw Story

3 hours ago

Trump ordered to hand over E. Jean Carroll's $5M after losing Supreme Court appeal: report

A federal judge has ordered President Donald Trump to release the more than $5 million payment he owes to E. Jean Carroll, a former magazine columnist who sued Trump for sexually abusing and defaming her, according to a new report. CNN reported on Wednesday that Judge Lewis Kaplan told Trump to release the money, along with accrued interest, after the Supreme Court refused to hear Trump's appeal in the case. The payment is part of the civil verdict that found Trump sexually abused Carroll in a department store in 1996, and then defamed her when he became president. Carroll has also secured an $83 million judgment from a jury in her defamation case against Trump. The president has until the end of July to appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court, according to the report. A spokesperson for the Trump administration told CNN in a statement, "The American People stand with President Trump as they demand an immediate end to all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded travesty of the Carroll Hoaxes. President Trump will keep winning against Liberal Lawfare, as he continues to focus on his mission to Make America Great Again."

Far Left

Read →

Appeals court denies Trump's request to halt removal of his name from the Kennedy Center

NPR Topics: News

3 hours ago

Appeals court denies Trump's request to halt removal of his name from the Kennedy Center

The D.C. circuit appeals court denied all of President Trump's arguments that sought to stop the removal of his name from the Washington, D.C., arts institution.

Center

Read →

This conflict of interest poses huge ethical risk for Supreme Court

Alternet.org

4 hours ago

This conflict of interest poses huge ethical risk for Supreme Court

In a letter sent to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on June 30, Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) sounded the alarm about "conflicts of interest and ethical risks posed by prediction market betting on Supreme Court decisions and Court operations." And the Democratic congressman urged Roberts to "consider adopting a policy to ban the use of prediction markets for all justices, officers, and staff." Landsman isn't the only one who is speaking out about prediction markets and the High Court. In Above the Law, Senior Editor Kathryn Rubino argues that prediction markets need to be addressed much more "explicitly" than what one presently finds in the High Court's "existing code of conduct.""Prediction markets have exploded," Rubino explains in Above The Law. "Monthly trading volume on Kalshi and Polymarket ballooned from under $5 billion in September 2025 to roughly $24 billion by April 2026. And the contracts available aren't exactly abstract. Users were able to bet on the outcomes of cases like birthright citizenship, whether states can count mail-in ballots after Election Day, the president's ability to fire members of independent agencies, and transgender athlete participation in high school sports. They can also bet on whether and when a specific justice will retire, and who their successor might be."Rubino continues, "That's a menu that would be very interesting to someone who already knows the answers. Justices know how they're voting before opinions are released. Law clerks know how cases are coming out. Judicial assistants know when a retirement is imminent. The insider information advantage here isn't theoretical — it's structural, and it accrues to a specific, small group of people at One First Street NE."The Above the Law reporter points out that "technically," the Code of Conduct for Justices covers prediction markets. But according to Rubino, Landsman, in his letter to Roberts, "makes the case that technically-already-prohibited isn't enough — partly because the prohibition isn't explicit, and partly because the conflict-of-interest risk isn’t limited to obviously case-related bets.""This Court has demonstrated a fairly consistent approach to outside calls for ethics reform: acknowledge them minimally, act on them minimally, and wait for the news cycle to move on," Rubino writes. "A letter from a Democratic member of the minority, however well-reasoned, is not historically the kind of thing that moves Roberts to act with urgency. The Court's ethics problem is not going to resolve itself."Rubino continues, "If Roberts is looking for a genuinely easy win — a way to get ahead of a problem before it metastasizes into a scandal rather than reacting to one after the fact — this is a fairly painless place to start. All he has to do is say the obvious thing. But um, I wouldn't hold your breath."

Left

Read →