Whether the warrantless surveillance program carried out by the National Security Agency (NSA) under President George W. Bush was legal is a question the United States Supreme Court is not going to answer.
|By: Kevin Gosztola Tuesday March 4, 2014 1:15 pm|
|By: Michelle Chen Thursday February 13, 2014 6:00 pm|
For workers in dangerous industries, safety should be non-negotiable. But the Supreme Court may have just given employers a little more leeway to put critical protections for workers on the table when bargaining over labor contracts.
In a unanimous decision issued n Sandifer v. United States Steel Corporation, the Supreme Court ruled against a group of steelworkers who argued that they should be compensated for the time they spend suiting up before and after their workdays, or “donning and doffing” protective gear including hard hats and safety glasses.
|By: Kevin Gosztola Tuesday January 14, 2014 11:25 am|
The Justice Department under President Barack Obama insists a journalist must testify against his source so they can prosecute and convict a former CIA officer for a leak. It has spent about six years trying to force him to testify, and now, having lost in an appeals court, he is taking his case to the Supreme Court.
|By: Daniel Walters Saturday October 12, 2013 1:59 pm|
In his recent book In the Balance: Law and Politics on the Roberts Court, Mark Tushnet does not disagree that politics and the Supreme Court go hand in hand. There is no denying that the Justices have political views and that those political views often influence how they decide cases. Professor Tushnet carefully dissects and criticizes the now infamous “umpire” analogy that Chief Justice John Roberts used in his confirmation hearing, replacing it with what he takes as the much more realistic and intellectually honest portraits of judging offered by Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
But where In the Balance makes its greatest contribution is in tempering the urge to dismiss the Court’s behavior as purely political.
|By: Jon Walker Tuesday October 8, 2013 11:15 am|
On Monday the United States Supreme Court decided not to hear an appeal regarding the rescheduling of marijuana. The case Americans for Safer Access V. DEA involved a coalition of medical marijuana groups suing the U.S. government to move marijuana from Schedule I, the most serious category for drugs.
|By: Attaturk Tuesday October 8, 2013 1:30 am|
You know that crazy aunt or uncle or Brother-in-law who sends you crazy-ass mass emails that you take about 15 seconds to debunk on Snopes.com — which you send to them — and three days later the process repeats itself?
|By: Ilya Shapiro Sunday October 6, 2013 1:59 pm|
The book offers unrivaled inside access to the key decision makers in Washington, based on interviews with over 100 of the people who lived this journey—including the academics who began the challenge, the lawyers who litigated the case at all levels, and the Obama administration attorneys who defended the law. It reads like a political thriller, providing the definitive account of how the Supreme Court almost struck down the president’s “unprecedented” law. It also explains what this decision means for the future of the Constitution, the limits on federal power, and the Supreme Court.
|By: Attaturk Monday September 23, 2013 1:30 am|
The Roberts’ Court, yet to meet a dollar they did not love more than humanity.
|By: RH Reality Check Wednesday September 18, 2013 5:45 am|
The United States Supreme Court term begins in October, and while the entire docket has not yet been set, already it’s shaping up to be a historic term, with decisions on abortion protests, legislative prayer, and affirmative action, just to name a few. Here are the key cases to keep an eye on as the term starts up.
|By: bmaz Sunday August 25, 2013 1:59 pm|
No right seems more fundamental to American public life than freedom of speech. Yet well into the twentieth century, that freedom was still an unfulfilled promise, with Americans regularly imprisoned merely for speaking out against government policies. Indeed, free speech as we know it comes less from the First Amendment than from a most unexpected source: Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. A lifelong skeptic, he disdained all individual rights, including the right to express one’s political views. But in 1919, it was Holmes who wrote a dissenting opinion that would become the canonical affirmation of free speech in the United States.
Why did Holmes change his mind? That question has puzzled historians for almost a century. Now, with the aid of newly discovered letters and confidential memos, law professor Thomas Healy reconstructs in vivid detail Holmes’s journey from free-speech opponent to First Amendment hero.