By Emily Glazer, Bloomberg The Supreme Court has declared in a major ruling that the Constitution grants Congress the power to determine how states interpret the text of the 14th Amendment.
The decision was made by Justice Anthony Kennedy, and was a significant win for the nation’s most important court, which has long been criticized for its narrow interpretations of the Constitution.
The court’s decision came during oral arguments in an amicus brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued that the text does not contain the provision guaranteeing an independent judiciary.
The Supreme Judicial Court, which is comprised of eight justices, is made up of three liberals and two conservatives, and its majority, consisting of five justices, will take a more conservative view of the text.
The justices are expected to make a final decision by the end of March.
A spokesman for the court declined to comment.
The Citizens United decision, which also struck down limits on campaign contributions, set off an intense debate over how to define the separation of powers.
The ruling could have a ripple effect on campaign finance law and other issues.
It also could open the door for corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections, and could lead to a new debate over whether the power of Congress to regulate money is absolute.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in March that the U.N. Charter should be interpreted to require the government to protect minorities and women, and to provide them with the same rights as other groups.
A majority of justices on the high court in June agreed to review the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prevents states from denying voters the right to vote because of race or ethnicity.
The Voting Rights Amendment has been under court review since 2009.
The Justice Department had asked the court to review a lower court decision that said the law should not be applied retroactively to some states that had implemented changes that prevented African Americans from voting.
The issue is likely to come up again at oral arguments this week.
The case also came up in the 2016 election, when a federal judge ruled that a group of North Carolina voters who challenged the state’s controversial voter ID law could not be denied their right to cast ballots.
The judge in that case, William Pryor, was nominated to the bench by President Bill Clinton in 1993.
The 5-4 ruling in 2016 allowed North Carolina to continue to pass the law, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is not on the court, dissented.