Tag Archives: Supreme Court of the United States

SCOTUS: Second Amendment doesn’t apply in California, but does in Iowa

Source: USA Today

“The Supreme Court refused Monday to take on the next big battle over the Second Amendment: carrying guns in public. The justices won’t hear a challenge to a California law that limits who can carry a concealed gun in public — a restriction that proponents of gun rights consider unconstitutional, but which the high court has yet to decide. In a related case, the justices also refused to hear the federal government’s appeal of a lower court ruling that allowed two men with criminal records to win back [sic] their right to possess firearms despite a lifetime federal ban.” (06/26/17)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/26/supreme-court-wont-rule-carrying-guns-public/101610512/

SCOTUS reinstates much of Trump’s Muslim ban, will hear case in fall

Source: NBC News

“The U.S. Supreme Court gave the Trump administration the go-ahead Monday to begin enforcing part of the president’s executive order restricting travel from six predominately Muslim countries. The court also agreed to take up the Trump administration’s appeal of lower court rulings that have prevented the government from carrying out the president’s policy, which the White House said was necessary to help prevent terrorists from entering the country. … The Supreme Court’s actions mean much the travel ban can be enforced for the next several months, at least until the justices hear the case when their new term begins in the fall.” (06/26/17)

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-reinstates-much-trump-s-travel-ban-will-hear-n776711

SCOTUS to hear case of attempt to enslave Colorado baker

Source: Los Angeles Times

“Supreme Court justices voted to hear an appeal from the owner of a Colorado bakery who refused to create and design a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The high court has agreed to hear a major case pitting conservative Christian beliefs against gay rights, and decide whether some business owners may cite their religious views as a reason for refusing to serve same-sex couples. … Jack Phillips, the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., was charged with violating the state’s anti-discrimination law, which says businesses open to the public may not deny service to customers based on their race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. The state commission held that his refusal to make the wedding cake amounted to discriminatory conduct, and the state courts upheld that decision.” [editor’s note: Religious beliefs shouldn’t be treated as the crux of the matter — people are either free or they are slaves, and any law requiring them to do work they choose not to do FOR ANY REASON makes them the latter – TLK] (06/26/17)

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-gays-religion-20170626-story.html

SCOTUS limits regime’s power to revoke citizenship

Source: The Hill

“The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a naturalized immigrant can’t be stripped of their citizenship for making false statements during the naturalization process that are irrelevant to an immigration official’s decision to grant or deny citizenship. A unanimous court said the government must establish that an immigrant’s illegal act during the naturalization process played some role in acquiring citizenship. When the underlying illegal act is a false statement, the justices said a jury must decide whether the false statements altered the naturalization process and influenced the immigration official’s decision.” (06/22/17)

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/338948-supreme-court-limits-governments-power-to-revoke-citizenship

SCOTUS: Bush era officials can’t be sued for their crimes

Source: Hindustan Times [India]

“The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that senior officials from president George W Bush’s administration cannot be held responsible for abuses against Muslim immigrants and others held in the frantic response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The 4-2 decision marked a victory for ex-attorney general John Ashcroft and former FBI director Robert Mueller, who have claimed along with other Bush era officials that they have immunity from prosecution. With the court’s ruling — which saw two justices recuse themselves and another skip the vote — Ashcroft and Mueller also avoided being held personally liable. The court was not making a decision on the prisoners’ treatment but rather as to whether the Bush officials should be granted legal protection from lawsuits and damages related to detention policies.” (06/20/17)

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/bush-era-officials-can-t-be-sued-for-post-9-11-abuses-us-supreme-court/story-r6q34TXfWi9jfyIb5Gk8mO.html

Yes, hate speech is free speech

Source: National Review
by Rich Lowry

“With the Left feverishly attempting to squash unwelcome speech on college campuses, with the president of the United States musing about tightening libel laws, with prominent liberals asserting that so-called hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment, free speech in America at least has one reliable friend — the Supreme Court of the United States. In a firm 8-0 decision, the court slapped down the Patent and Trademark Office for denying a band federal trademark registration for the name ‘The Slants,’ a derogatory term for Asian-Americans. The case involves a very small corner of federal law, but implicates the broader logic of political correctness, which is that speech should be silenced for the greater good if there is a chance that someone, somewhere might be offended by it.” (06/20/17)

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448776/slants-supreme-court-matal-v-tam-decision-protects-free-speech

SCOTUS: First Amendment protects sex offenders’ use of social media

Source: New York Daily News

“Social media use is a constitutional right — even for sex offenders, the Supreme Court decided Monday. The justices unanimously ruled that it’s fine for convicted sex offenders to use social media sites such as Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter and LinkedIn, as long as they aren’t breaking the law while doing so. This is one of the Supreme Court’s few cases so far about the constitutionality of social media, and one of the few major decisions to say online access is a basic American right. The decision struck down a North Carolina law that banned sex offenders from logging onto social media.” (06/19/17)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/sex-offenders-allowed-social-media-supreme-court-article-1.3260200

SCOTUS strikes down rule against disparaging trademarks

Source: Hollywood Reporter

“Those of fiendish or mischievous mind will have an easier time registering trademarks after the Supreme Court on Monday decided to reject as unconstitutional a rule against disparaging ones. The high court’s decision, authored by justice Samuel Alito, holds that a Lanham Act provision against such offensive trademarks is facially invalid under the First Amendment. … The free speech victory goes to Simon Tam, the Asian-American frontman for The Slants who attempted to register his rock band’s name. He says he picked his band’s moniker in an effort to reclaim a stereotype. After trademark examiners refused Tam’s application, Tam brought a lawsuit, and in December 2015, he prevailed at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court has now affirmed the lower appeals court’s opinion, which is also potentially welcome news for the NFL’s Washington Redskins, whose own marks were canceled for being disparaging to Native Americans.” (06/19/17)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/supreme-court-strikes-down-rule-disparaging-trademarks-1006208

SCOTUS to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering

Source: Salt Lake Tribune

“The Supreme Court declared Monday that it will consider whether gerrymandered election maps favoring one political party over another violate the Constitution, a potentially fundamental change in the way American elections are conducted. … The court accepted a case from Wisconsin, where a divided panel of three federal judges last year ruled that the state’s Republican leadership in 2011 pushed through a plan so partisan that it violated the Constitution’s First Amendment and equal rights protections. The issue will be briefed and argued in the Supreme Court term that begins in October.” (06/19/17)

http://www.sltrib.com/home/5418034-155/supreme-court-to-hear-potentially-landmark

Cell phone searches: SCOTUS to rule on whether 4th Amendment exists

Source: USA Today

“Your cellphone service provider knows where you’ve been. Now the Supreme Court will decide if its OK for police to find out as well — without a warrant. The justices agreed Monday to hear what will be the latest in a string of cases testing the clash of technology and privacy. The challenge comes from a man convicted of armed robberies in Michigan and Ohio, for whom police accessed 127 days of cell phone records, revealing 12,898 points of location data. The suspect, Timothy Carpenter, was convicted and then lost a 2-1 federal appeals court ruling in which he argued that police should have sought a warrant.” [editor’s note: It’s dumb that this made it past the first hearing of the lowest court without the fruit of the illegal search being thrown out – TLK] (06/05/17)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/05/supreme-court-rule-cellphone-location-privacy/102191128/