A University of Nevada-Las Vegas law professor said the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court has issued major decisions dramatically changing the country's legal landscape.

David Orentlicher said the court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and its constitutional right to an abortion two years ago was a pivotal moment in history. Former President Donald Trump has taken credit for placing three conservative justices on the court, which helped delegate the issue of abortion to states.

Orentlicher noted it is unknown how many appointments a president may be dealt, which can be unsettling.

"It is unpredictable which is a reason why one common reform proposal is to say, instead of having justices serve for life, have them serve 18 years and every two years," Orentlicher outlined. "One justice's term will expire so we'll know that every president will get two appointments."

He pointed out looking at today's voter's political ideals, the court should ideally reflect a closer 50-50 split. And while some have made the case for Supreme Court reform initiatives to bring more balance, the initiatives have not advanced. Republicans in Congress argued the changes would jeopardize the separation of powers between Congress and the Court.

Sarah Harris, deputy communications director for Stand Up America, said the winner of the November election could reshape legal precedent in the U.S. for generations. Her group conducted a survey and reported nearly 75% of voters said the selection and confirmation of future justices will be important when deciding who to support in the upcoming races.

"It's important to think about generations after us, because many of the people who could potentially be put on the bench will be on there for 50 to 60 years, potentially," Harris emphasized. "Justices continue to be appointed younger and younger."

Harris added four of the current justices on the bench will be in their 70s in 2025 when the next president takes office. The next president could have the opportunity to potentially put two to three new justices on the bench.

Voting rights advocates in Texas are speaking out against a proof-of-citizenship bill before lawmakers.

Senate Bill 16 would require new registrants and some existing registered voters to prove they are U.S. citizens.

Amber Mills, issue advocacy director for the Move Texas Civic Fund, said the requirement would be in addition to what the state already does to check someone's eligibility.

"When you're completing a voter form, you do also have to submit either your driver's license number or your Social Security number," Mills pointed out. "That's really important because that is how the state verifies who you are, and that's a key indicator that they use to protect their databases on the back end."

Even if you were born in the U.S., the bill could require you to show proof of citizenship with a passport or birth certificate matching your current name. According to the Secure Democracy Foundation, more than 38% percent of rural and small-town Texans do not have a passport.

Anyone who cannot prove citizenship would be placed on a separate voter roll and could only cast ballots in the U.S. House and Senate races.

Emily French, policy director for the advocacy group Common Cause Texas, said the additional barriers could prevent many residents from casting their votes in local, state and presidential races.

"All the DPS systems, all the immigration systems which say that they are citizens, but there can still be mistakes that mark them as noncitizens and could throw them off the voter rolls until they come in with these documents that they don't have," French explained.

The bill directs the Texas Secretary of State's Office to check all registered voters' status by the end of the year and send the names of registered voters who have not proven their citizenship before September 2025 to county elections offices.

Mills noted if you are flagged, there is no online system to comply with the request and all paperwork must be submitted in person.

"We are not disputing the goal of having only eligible citizens on the voter rolls, but we know that Texas already has strong systems in place," Mills emphasized. "It's ultimately the state's responsibility, the county's responsibility to do these voter roll checks, but what SB 16 would do is not change any of that, not improve any of that. It would just add an additional burden."


get more stories like this via email

Legal groups are weighing an appeal after a court ruling this week that left voters in several states, including North Dakota, at a disadvantage in making use of the Voting Rights Act.

At issue is their ability to sue based on racial discrimination. A three-judge panel with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a pathway under Section Two of the landmark law for voters to bring lawsuits if they feel local and state election policies have violated their civil rights. The decision stems from a recent redistricting victory for a pair of Native American Tribes in North Dakota.

Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting for the Campaign Legal Center, said he was shocked by the latest outcome.

"The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has done what no court in the country has ever done, and there's been 400-plus Voting Rights Act cases filed for decades," Gaber pointed out.

The decision affirmed a ruling from the full 8th Circuit, which said language in this section of the law does not specifically mention private individuals. One judge filed a dissenting opinion. The 8th Circuit covers seven states, and civil rights groups said if the outcome stands, voters in those states would have to lobby the Justice Department to bring a case forward.

Gaber noted the problem with asking the Justice Department is, the agency is not equipped to move quickly on such requests.

"They simply don't have the resources," Gaber pointed out. "The individual voters who are familiar with what is happening in their localities and on the ground are frankly, in many cases, better suited to bring these cases."

The Justice Department is also part of budget-cutting moves by the Trump administration. Meanwhile, the Native American Rights Fund said this week's ruling sets a dangerous precedent for minority voters who do not want to be silenced.


get more stories like this via email

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte has seen the last few bills of the 2025 legislative session cross his desk and as the ink dries, policy experts reminded Montanans some bills will face the courts before they take effect.

Gianforte signed Senate Bill 490, which changes the Election Day cutoff for same-day voter registration from 8 p.m. to noon. It also eliminates early registration the Monday before Election Day, shifting the deadline to 5 p.m. on Saturday.

Zuri Moreno, state legislative director for the advocacy group Forward Montana, said the change especially affects Montanans who drive long distances to vote.

"We've already heard from the courts that you're not supposed to mess around with same-day voter registration," Moreno pointed out. "It just takes away that opportunity for working folks and young folks and rural people across the state."

Montana's Supreme Court ruled last year banning same-day voter registration is unconstitutional. In January, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the decision.

Laws passed this session may still be challenged in court, including those centered on the LGBTQ+ community, which was targeted by at least 23 bills. Moreno noted the "community really showed up this session."

"We saw so many folks sharing personal stories and public testimony, so many folks showing up for lobby days and rallies," Moreno recounted. "Thousands of people engaged in the legislative process, which is essential."

In a win for renters, Gianforte also signed House Bill 311 , which requires rental application fees to be returned to people who do not end up signing a lease.