If either Ginsburg or Breyer resign this summer we can expect a contentious, drawn out, and divisive confirmation battle. But that is nothing like we are bound to see if they wait until after November when odds are the Republicans will take the Senate.
The Supreme Court's Noel Canning decision upholds the D.C. Circuit's outcome, but repudiates its reasoning and leaves the elected branches with pretty much the same tools already available to them to foster either friction or cooperation. All in all, it's a pretty good day for constitutionalism.
It appears that Chief Justice Roberts feels that if a social media company states that they have access to view and analyze your posts, content, and relationships, then that ought to be fair game for the government (and law enforcement), too.
What the SCOTUS historically has not engaged in since the days of the Robber Barons, though, seems to be pattern and practice of the Roberts SCOTUS: Libertarian pro-corporate, anti-government, anti-citizen rulings that serve the most narrow and wealthy of interests.
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.