The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments today in the case of Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Inc., determining the constitutionality of Arizona’s Prop. 200, a law that requires voters to present certain documents as proof of U.S. citizenship when using the federal form to register to vote at the polls.

Angelia Wade is an associate general counsel at the AFL-CIO. She sends us this takeaway of the opening oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder. This is a case of extreme importance for voting rights advocates.

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Shelby County, Alabama versus Holder. It was a spirited oral argument that drew clear and noticeable reactions from otherwise staid attorneys as we sat in the lawyers’ lounge, an area for attorneys barred before the Supreme Court but who are unable to get in the courtroom if the courtroom is at capacity, as it was yesterday. We could only hear the argument, not see the justices. The comment that received the most attention was that of Justice Antonin Scalia, who claimed the renewal of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act represented the "perpetuation of racial entitlement.” He further insinuated that no one in Congress was going to vote against the renewal of Section 5 in 2006, (Section 5 was renewed 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House) because lawmakers did not want to lose votes. He stated, "Even the name of it is wonderful, the Voting Rights Act. Who's going to vote against that?" He further claimed, “I don't think there is anything to be gained by any senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be re-enacted in perpetuity unless—unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution.” But this case is not about the Court’s opinion of why senators or representatives vote the way they do, even if it is out of some kind of “political correctness” or fear.  

A new voter ID law threatened to disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters who are mostly people of color in South Carolina last year. Florida officials tried to curtail early voting that could have kept African Americans and others from the polls. Texas went for a twofer in voter suppression with a restrictive voter ID bill and a redistricting plan that put the voting rights of millions of African Americans and Latinos at risk.

Thanks to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the federal government was able to step in and preserve the people’s right to vote. But now the same forces behind the nationwide voter suppression effort are looking to the U.S. Supreme Court to repeal Section 5 and arguments begin Wednesday.

The AFL-CIO has filed a friend of the court brief in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court in which an employer is attempting to avoid paying its workers back wages. The case centers on a Pennsylvania nurse, Laura Symczyk, Genesis Healthcare Corp. and methods employers are using to get around paying wages due under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Ohio souls will go to the polls on the weekend before Election Day. Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request by Ohio Republican lawmakers to stay a lower court decision that had refused to allow the state to curtail early voting on the weekend that traditionally yields high voter turnout in communities of color. Many African American churches organize events to get their congregations to the polls after worship services on Sunday. 

As a result, early voting will take place in Ohio on the weekend before Election Day.

Earlier this year, as part of a voter suppression campaign in the Buckeye State, Republican legislators passed a bill ending the weekend of early voting.

Yesterday, at the U.S. Supreme Court, some 500 students, activists, community leaders and concerned citizens gathered to show their support for the University of Texas at Austin and its admissions policy in the case Fisher v. University of Texas. The first major case of its kind in nine years, the ruling in this potentially landmark case could limit or eliminate affirmative action practices in university and college admission departments all across the country.

This is a cross-post from the Alliance for Justice’s Justice Watch blog.   

In a series of 5 to 4 rulings, a majority on the United States Supreme Court effectively has rewritten the law to favor big business at the expense of the American people, according to a new documentary, "Unequal Justice: The Relentless Rise of the 1% Court," produced by Alliance for Justice (AFJ), which was released online Monday. “Today, as the Supreme Court begins a new term, the court will be ‘open for business,'” said AFJ President Nan Aron. 

The term is already packed with cases with the potential to restrict corporate accountability and limit everyday Americans’ civil rights and access to justice  The court’s decisions this term could have harmful consequences for the ability of consumers, victims of discrimination and others to get a fair day in court.

This is a cross-post from the Alliance for Justice blog, Justice Watch. 

We all know how big business has eroded the American dream by getting Congress and the executive branch to change the rules to favor corporations and the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us. But it hasn’t stopped with two branches of government. Corporate special interests have spent decades working to put their thumb on the scales of justice. The campaign finance decision in Citizens United is only the most prominent example. 

Aliza Levine, council organizer for the North Shore Labor Council, AFL-CIO, sends us this.

Immediately after the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act, more than 50 union members and community allies rallied outside of Greater Lynn Senior Services in Massachusetts to celebrate the decision. The crowd, which included members of the North Shore Labor Council, AFL-CIO, and Massachusetts Senior Action Council, noted that although the Supreme Court upheld the health care decision, the very services it protects are at risk if the budget proposed by Republican Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) passed.

John August, executive director of the Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions, sends us this update on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act today. The coalition is an alliance of 29 local unions representing 90,000 health care workers.

Important and good news: The pathway to provide health care for all of our people has survived. Since the Civil War, many attempts to extend health care for all have failed. As of today, June 28, 2012, the path has finally been cleared.

Of course, the law is not an extension of Medicare for all, nor does it guarantee health care for all tomorrow. It certainly does not guarantee health care for all that is equitable, affordable and of the highest quality. Those struggles are still before us.