Editor Brian Harrod Provides Comprehensive up-to-date news coverage, with aggregated news from sources all over the world from the Roundup Newswires Network
In this Tuesday, Jan. 30, 2018 file photo, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts listens as President Donald Trump delivers his first State of the Union address in the House chamber of the U.S. Capitol to a joint session of Congress Tuesday in Washington. The retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy means that the conservative Roberts probably will be the justice closest to the court's four liberals, allowing Roberts to control where the court comes down in some of its most contentious cases.
For decades, Karen Korematsu has hoped and prayed that someday the U.S. Supreme Court would overturn its infamous 1944 decision upholding the mass incarceration of her father, Fred, and 120,000 others of Japanese descent during World War II. Karen Korematsu, daughter of Fred Korematsu, held a publication from the Korematsu Institute that depicted her father on the cover.
The opportunity to revisit the ruling presented itself in a dissenting opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, which compared the internment of Japanese-Americans to groups affected by the Trump travel ban. Chief Justice John Roberts rejected the comparison, but said the reference to Korematsu v.
A California law requiring licensed anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to post information about the availability of state-subsidized abortions is likely unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision Monday. The Supreme Court said notice requirements for both licensed and unlicensed centers were content-based restrictions that likely violate the First Amendment.
This was a major bone of contention among conservative reformers during the health care debates of the 1990s. It was an issue during the 2008 contest for the Democratic presidential nomination, with Hillary Clinton saying yes and Barack Obama saying no .
Police generally need a warrant to look at records that reveal where cellphone users have been, the Supreme Court ruled Friday in a big victory for privacy interests in the digital age. The justices' 5-4 decision marks a big change in how police may obtain information that phone companies collect from the ubiquitous cellphone towers that allow people to make and receive calls, and transmit data.
Police generally need a warrant to look at records that reveal where cellphone users have been, the Supreme Court ruled Friday in a big victory for privacy interests in the digital age. The justices' 5-4 decision marks a big change in how police may obtain information that phone companies collect from the ubiquitous cellphone towers that allow people to make and receive calls, and transmit data.
What expectation of privacy do consumers have in an increasingly technological world? New technology is forcing more answers - and reinterpretation of the Constitution. The US Supreme Court ended the week with a decision that updates privacy protections for the digital age.
Law enforcement officers need to obtain a search warrant in order to obtain data that shows the location of cellphone users, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision released Friday. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, citing the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable government searches.
The Supreme Court handed down a landmark opinion today in Carpenter v. United States , ruling 5-4 that the Fourth Amendment protects cell phone location information.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday imposed limits on the ability of police to obtain cellphone data pinpointing the past location of criminal suspects in a major victory for digital privacy advocates and a setback for law enforcement authorities. In the 5-4 ruling, the court said police generally need a court-approved warrant to get the data, setting a higher legal hurdle than previously existed under federal law.
The United States Supreme court issued a decision this morning required police to obtain a warrant from a judge in order to track individuals through cellphone records. The 5-4 ruling is being regarded as a win for privacy advocates in the U.S. The decision derived from a 2011 case in which FBI agents used three months of phone records in order to capture and convict a Michigan man of robbing Radio Shack and T-Mobile locations.
Police generally need a warrant to look at records that reveal where cellphone users have been, the Supreme Court ruled Friday in a big victory for privacy interests in the digital age. The justices' 5-4 decision marks a big change in how police may obtain information that phone companies collect from the ubiquitous cellphone towers that allow people to make and receive calls, and transmit data.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion in the political clothing case. It doesn't always happen, but the Supreme Court on Thursday followed the advice of the Los Angeles Times editorial board.
The Trump administration told a federal court Thursday it won't defend Obamacare against a lawsuit that's trying to strike down most of the law. It's a notable stance that means it will be up to Obamacare fans such as Democratic governors to step in and defend the Affordable Care Act against on onslaught from GOP attorneys general, who say after Congress nixed the individual mandate at the heart of the law, the rest of it should follow.
A new report , originally ordered by Supreme Court Justice John Roberts and released by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts , exposes a number of sexual harassment issues and general incivility inside the U.S. Court system. "On December 20, 2017, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., asked the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to establish a working group to examine the sufficiency of the safeguards currently in place within the Judiciary to protect all court employees from inappropriate conduct in the workplace," the report states.
"It is largely eclipsed by some of its other rulings and non-rulings of the day, but one of the most interesting things that the Supreme Court failed to decide yesterday was how lower courts are supposed to read a 4-1-4 Supreme Court decision with no majority opinion. The case is Hughes v.
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who had refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple. The court's decision was narrow, and it left open the larger question of whether a business can discriminate against gay men and lesbians based on rights protected by the First Amendment.