Blog

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic truly altered the world around us. Many things have changed, but not all of these changes are necessarily bad. If there is a silver lining, it might be the way the world has come together through innovation. One such innovation, though not entirely novel, is the unprecedented adoption and growth of Telehealth in America.

In just a few weeks, the United States Women’s National Soccer Team (USWNT) will compete for its fifth Olympic gold medal. Ranking as the top team in the world, this pursuit comes on the heels of the team winning the 2019 FIFA Women’s World Cup. An astonishing accomplishment, USWNT is now the second national team to win back-to-back tournaments and the only with four Women’s World Cup titles.

The Tax Code purports to cut gift recipients a break and not include the value of that gift in their federal income. The standard for determining if something is a gift, however, is a subjective standard set forth by the Supreme Court, resulting in determinations of income to be left to the cynicism of judges.

On October 26, 2020, the United States Senate voted to confirm Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States. This 52-48 vote fell largely on partisan grounds, becoming the first Supreme Court confirmation in modern times to receive no support from the minority party.

Though, before being confirmed as the 115th Associate Justice to serve on the United States Supreme Court, then-Judge Barrett faced questioning from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on her judicial philosophy and legal knowledge. When responding to a question from Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse asking her to name the five freedoms granted by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Judge Barrett faltered.

At the intersection of two entrenched principles—freedom from workplace discrimination and unfettered religious practice—sits a doctrine called the ministerial exception. The doctrine gives deference to religious institutions’ internal employment practices regarding its “ministers,” providing immunity from employment discrimination claims. First discussed in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the doctrine permeated lower courts for decades before the Supreme Court finally granted it ultimate legitimacy in 2012.