Free Republic

(Regarding Cellphones) The Supreme Court has handed down a unanimous decision in Riley v. California, and it's good news for digital privacy advocates. The Court decided that once someone is arrested, the police may not search the person's phone without a warrant. The ruling stated that "the term 'cell phone' is often misleading in shorthand; many of these devices are in fact miniature computers that also happen to have the capacity to be used as a telephone. They could just as easily be called cameras, video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps, or newspapers." Before just...

Two and one-half years ago in 2012, Obama tried to slip-in appointments to the National Labor Relations Board without the constitutionally required Senate approval, claiming he had the right to do so because the Senate was in recess. There’s only one problem. The Senate was not in formal recess when Obama made the dictatorial appointments. Now the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in a unanimous 9-0 decision that Obama doesn’t get to define when the U.S. Senate is in recess, the Senate does. This is the first time in U.S. history that the Constitution’s recess appointment clause...

Did you know the Obama administration’s position has been defeated in at least 13 – thirteen — cases before the Supreme Court since January 2012 that were unanimous decisions? It continued its abysmal record before the Supreme Court today with the announcement of two unanimous opinions against arguments the administration had supported. First, the Court rejected the administration’s power grab on recess appointments by making clear it could not decide when the Senate was in recess. Then it unanimously tossed out a law establishing abortion-clinic “buffer zones” against pro-life protests that the administration supported (though the case was argued by...

On March 13, 2012, Aaron C. Ols went to the park across the street from his house to confront a man, his fiancee, their two children and dog who were in the park after hours.   The park was closed at 8 pm.  Animals were not allowed in the park.    Sunset was at 6:56 PM, so this was after dark. An argument ensued.  Ols retreated to his property, and was followed by the other man.    Ols repeatedly told the man to leave.  The man threatened to kill Ols, who then drew his firearm, pointed it at the ground, and called...

The Supreme Court ruling on Aereo is out, and the court has ruled against the upstart company and in favor of TV broadcasters. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision that had ruled in favor of Aero, a service that lets you stream live network TV. The court found that Aereo's service violated the copyrights of live network TV stations. "This ruling appears sweeping and definitive, determining that Aereo is illegal," the lawyer Tom Goldstein wrote on SCOTUSBlog. The case will have lasting implications for the way content is delivered online. Aereo's technology uses special...

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that states outlawing same-sex marriage are in violation of the U.S. Constitution. By upholding a Utah judge’s decision, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals became the first appeals court to rule on the issue, setting a historic precedent that voter-approved bans on same-sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of same-sex couples to equal protection and due process. But the court stayed the implementation of their decision, pending a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. The appeals court upheld U.S. Judge Robert Shelby’s December decision, which struck down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage. The...

http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_Blog_of_opinions__June_25_2014

A federal judge in Oregon says the process surrounding the federal government's "no-fly list" is unconstitutional. Specifically, U.S. District Judge Anna Brown said the process doesn't give Americans on the list an effective way to challenge their inclusion.

(Newser) – It's a big week for the Supreme Court, which wraps up its term next Monday. We'll be hearing from the justices on a number of key cases that have been argued since January, ranging from ObamaCare to free speech. USA Today outlines the highlights; this week's decisions will be issued today, Wednesday, and Thursday, notes SCOTUSblog: The court will decide whether for-profit companies can receive religious exemptions from the ObamaCare's requirement that employers cover contraceptives. Justices will address the constitutionality of a Massachusetts law barring protests within 35 feet of an abortion clinic. Another question concerns a president's...

In a defiant statement issued Wednesday, the Washington Redskins said the team would appeal the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's decision to revoke the trademark to the team's name and logo on the grounds that they are offensive to Native Americans. The professional football team added that in the meantime, the ruling would have "no effect at all" on its trademark rights while the case is on appeal. The press release even put that in boldface and underlined it. "We are confident we will prevail once again, and that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s divided ruling will be overturned...

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Patent Office ruled Wednesday that the Washington Redskins nickname is "disparaging of Native Americans" and that the team's federal trademarks for the name must be canceled. The 2-1 ruling comes after a campaign to change the name has gained momentum over the past year. The team doesn't immediately lose trademark protection and is allowed to retain it during an appeal.

A prominent pro-life group won a decisive victory against an Ohio state law that blocked a series of campaign ads during the 2010 election. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List), a non-profit organization that supports pro-life candidates, had every right to establish billboards stating that a vote for Obamacare meant a vote for taxpayer funded abortion during the 2010 midterm elections. The target of those billboards, Democratic Rep. Steve Driehaus, sued the group using an Ohio law that prohibits “false statements” in political campaigns. Driehaus lost the election by 7 points. The court’s 9-0...

It was less than a year ago that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — which in 1996 barred same-sex marriages from being recognized under federal law – was unconstitutional. Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Windsor, wrote: As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe. By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law...

Milwaukee police who forced their way into a gun rights advocate's home without a warrant, took her for an emergency mental evaluation and seized her gun were justified under the circumstances and protected from her civil rights claims, a federal appeals court has ruled. "The intrusions upon Sutterfield's privacy were profound," Judge Ilana Rovner wrote for three-judge panel. "At the core of the privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment is the right to be let alone in one's home." But the court also found, that on the other hand, "There is no suggestion that (police) acted for any reason other...

Atheist parents and students wanted the Pledge of Allegiance banned in schools in Massachusetts because it contains the phrase "under God," but the state's highest court has ruled that reciting it does not violate the commonwealth's constitution or laws. "We hold that the recitation of the pledge, which is entirely voluntary, violates neither the Constitution nor the statute [which prohibits discrimination in Massachusetts public school education] ...," the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said Friday in Doe v. Acton-Boxborough Regional School District. "Simply being offended by something does not make it a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution," said Senior Legal Counsel...

The U.S. Supreme Court on May 5 upheld the practice of voluntary prayer before public meetings by a 5-4 ruling, drawing praise from those who said such prayers are a long American tradition that avoids censoring religion. “Opening public meetings with prayer is a cherished freedom that the authors of the Constitution themselves practiced,” Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel David Cortman said May 5. “Speech censors should have no power to silence volunteers who pray for their communities just as the Founders did.” Cortman said the Supreme Court “affirmed that Americans are free to pray.” “In America, we tolerate a...

FULL TITLE: Will the infamous 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals make First Amendment exception for Islamists by forcing Google to remove Muhammad movie? By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Google on February 26, 2014 to remove the controversial movie “Innocence of Muslims” from Youtube.com. This movie that sparked protests across the Muslim world “depicts Muhammad as a feckless philanderer who approved of child sexual abuse, among other overtly insulting claims that have caused outrage. In a 13 minute 51 second trailer, the Islamic prophet is made to look like a...

Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s fierce defense of the affirmative action efforts like the ones that helped move her from a Bronx housing project to the upper echelons of American law found renewed voice Tuesday in an impassioned dissent that accused colleagues of trying to “wish away” racial inequality — and drew a tart response from Chief Justice John G. Roberts

A move is under way in the California court system to ban judges from belonging to the Boys Scouts of America because the youth organization discriminates against homosexuals. A proposed rule change by the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on The Code of Judicial Ethics would make the BSA no longer “excepted from the category of organizations that practice ‘invidious discrimination’ on the basis of sexual orientation.” Last May, the BSA’s National Council voted to allow acknowledged homosexuals to be in the program but not in leadership. It’s the ban on “gay” leaders that has prompted the California courts’ action.