One year ago today, in two historic decisions, the Supreme Court struck down the heart of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" in Windsor v. United States. In an instant, the world changed forever.
According to the Supreme Court, police need a warrant to search the cellphones of people they arrest. The unanimous decision, which was handed down this week, is being heralded as a major victory for privacy rights and a landmark case with implications far beyond cellphones.
Thursday's Supreme Court ruling in McCullen vs. Coakley, despite the unified outcome and facade, makes it clear that abortion is and will continue to be a wedge issue dividing the justices for years to come.
Interestingly enough, even American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers members in the states that currently don't allow same-sex marriage have noted an increased number of consultations with same-sex couples to discuss cohabitation agreements and other legal strategies.
This week's unanimous Supreme Court decision affirming a robust Fourth Amendment protection for cellphone data is an enormously important victory for privacy rights in the digital age.
Has technology become such an integral part of what it means to be human that we are now actually cyborgs, part organic and apparently part digital? T...
It turns out that immigration law stumps even the Supreme Court. The Court's recent decision in Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio is marred by errors that may well have affected its outcome.
Fathoming legislative intent simply is too subjective and too slender of a reed to support such an important decision and to divide the winners from the losers that others have already sorted out.
One year ago, a majority of Supreme Court justices weakened the federal government's ability to prevent voter discrimination. In a sweeping decision, they decimated the Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled today that police may not search information on an arrested suspect's cell phone without an additional search warrant. In two cases from both coasts, consolidated into a single opinion the Court held that the privacy interests in protecting the tremendous amount of personal information stored on cell phones outweighs the government's interest to its immediate access by police, even after a suspect is lawfully arrested. The cases decided today forced the Court to analyze a centuries-old constitutional amendment in light of modern technological advances.
In a major win for broadcasters, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Aereo, a streaming service that provides access to programs at about the same time as they are broadcast, violates the Copyright Act of 1976. The decision is a huge blow for Aereo, which may go out of business.
Last week, in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, the Court unanimously -- with all judges signing onto an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas -- may have taken Sullivan up a notch, albeit on a procedural issue. And this time it is the conservatives who demand their right to free speech.
Both industry and environmental organizations declared victory on Monday and with some justification for each position. But if industry is being honest, on the core issue in UARG, they won 3 percent of what they asked for and lost the other 97 percent.
Since the publication of Jo Becker's controversial Forcing the Spring, it's fair to say that the Prop 8 legal team have been on the defensive. A lot of us have wondered what they thought about the book, so last week I interviewed Ted Olson, a lifelong Republican and former solicitor general under George W. Bush, and put these and other questions to him.
The problem isn't complicated. Access to the vote is not about politics; it's about justice and equality.
It's a federal crime to communicate a true threat of violence in the United States. Such speech is not protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of free expression. But what exactly constitutes a true threat of violence in the age of Twitter, YouTube and Facebook?