Featured Post from Cedarville University

Supreme Court Expansion Debate Raises Questions About Judicial Independence

Oct 14, 2026

1 min

Should the Supreme Court remain at nine justices, or would a larger bench strengthen the nation’s highest court? That question is drawing renewed attention after a Republican-backed constitutional amendment to permanently limit the court to nine seats failed in the House in September. Democratic proposals include expanding the court to 13 justices, while supporters and opponents disagree over whether changing its size would improve its credibility or deepen political divisions.

Although nine justices may seem like a constitutional requirement, Congress determines the court’s size. Its membership changed several times before settling at nine in 1869. Legislation introduced by Rep. Al Green would increase that number to 13, reopening a debate over how much influence elected officials should have over the structure of the judiciary. Supporters see expansion as a way to restore balance and bring additional perspectives to the bench. Critics worry that adding seats to secure favorable rulings could encourage future majorities to pursue similar changes.

The broader issue is how to preserve public confidence in an institution designed to exercise independent judgment. The Constitution’s protections for federal judges, including service during good behavior and protection against salary reductions, are intended to shield them from partisan pressure. Changing the court’s membership would create new opportunities for presidential appointments, with consequences that could extend well beyond a single administration. As the debate continues, Americans face a consequential question: What reforms would strengthen accountability while preserving the Supreme Court’s ability to interpret the law independently?

Connect with:

Mark Caleb Smith, Ph.D.

Professor of Political Science

Dr. Smith is an expert in American politics, campaigns & elections, and constitutional law.

Constitutional LawPresidential PoliticsPresidential Campaigns

Find Experts

Nov 4, 2026

2 min

Rising Measles Cases Put Public Health Communication in Focus

The continued spread of measles is drawing attention to both disease prevention and how health officials explain risks to the public. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 4,852 confirmed U.S. cases through October 29, more than twice the 2,289 cases recorded during all of 2025. With 96% of this year’s cases associated with outbreaks, the figures underscore the importance of helping communities understand how the disease spreads and who faces the greatest risks. Measles spreads through the air and can cause complications including pneumonia and brain inflammation. Young children, pregnant women and people with weakened immune systems are among those at higher risk of severe complications. The CDC identifies vaccination as the best protection, with two doses of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine approximately 97% effective at preventing measles. Communicating those facts clearly gives families a foundation for discussing their circumstances with health professionals. The communication challenge extends beyond publishing case totals. Families need understandable explanations of what an exposure means, how local conditions affect their risk and where to turn with questions. Effective outreach must also distinguish established evidence from uncertainty, acknowledge concerns respectfully and explain the reasoning behind recommendations. Those tasks become particularly consequential when people encounter conflicting claims about the same disease. How can health professionals communicate urgency while building trust? Dr. Zach Jenkins, professor of pharmacy practice at Cedarville University, has training and clinical experience in infectious diseases and has helped community stakeholders, policymakers and media outlets understand public health issues. His background provides a relevant perspective on explaining outbreak risks and translating medical evidence into information families can use.

Nov 2, 2026

1 min

Manufacturing Gains Highlight the Tension Between Growth and Rising Costs

U.S. manufacturing activity strengthened in October, offering an encouraging sign for the economy while highlighting continued pressure on business costs. The Institute for Supply Management’s report released November 2 showed its manufacturing index rising to 55.5 from September’s 54.5. A reading above 50 indicates expansion. Production accelerated, but manufacturers also reported rising input prices and slower supplier deliveries, illustrating why stronger factory activity does not necessarily bring immediate relief from inflation. The report’s pricing measure declined from September but remained well above the threshold indicating increasing costs. That distinction matters: fewer manufacturers reporting price increases does not mean the materials they purchase have become cheaper. Survey respondents also described uncertainty surrounding pricing, trade policy and delivery times. Together, those pressures can complicate decisions about purchasing equipment, adding employees and committing to long-term contracts, even when orders remain strong. For consumers, the question is how businesses respond. Manufacturers facing higher expenses may absorb some costs through lower profit margins, seek more efficient production methods or pass increases along to customers. Stronger production could help meet demand, but its effect on affordability depends partly on whether supply keeps pace and cost pressures ease. These developments raise a broader question: How much can manufacturing grow before rising expenses begin to limit its gains? Dr. Jared Pincin, associate professor of economics at Cedarville University, brings relevant expertise to examining how business costs, consumer prices and economic policy interact—and why encouraging production figures can coexist with financial strain.

Oct 29, 2026

1 min

Reported Iranian Threats Prompt U.S. Embassy Precautions

Reported threats against American personnel are prompting new precautions at U.S. diplomatic posts in the Middle East. The State Department is reducing staffing at embassies in Jordan, Lebanon, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates following intelligence warnings about increased Iranian efforts to target Americans. The embassies remain open under restricted operations, and the staffing changes differ from the ordered departure of nonessential personnel and families from Saudi Arabia. The precautions underscore the challenges of maintaining a diplomatic presence during a regional conflict. Embassies support communication with foreign governments, assist American citizens and provide information that helps guide U.S. policy. Reducing staff can limit personnel’s exposure to danger, but it also requires officials to reassess which activities can safely continue. Reported threats involving Iran-backed Houthi militants add another layer of complexity to those security decisions. The developments also raise questions about how Washington can protect its personnel while preserving channels for negotiation. U.S. officials have denied that the staffing reductions are connected to potential new American and Israeli strikes against Iran. The precautions nevertheless illustrate how intelligence warnings can affect diplomatic operations before an attack occurs—and how regional tensions can place Americans serving abroad at risk.