What should happen if someone threatens to kill you on social media? Are they protected by the First Amendment right guaranteeing the right to freedom of speech, or are they breaking the law? We will soon know now the answer after the Supreme Court rules on a case that may have far reaching ramifications well beyond the single case they are hearing.
An investigation by CNN has exposed that the National Republican Congressional Committee and Super PAC's associated with Republican candidates in the 2014 election cycle set up fake Twitter accounts to share internal polling data, which seems to violate campaign finance laws in the post Citizens United world.
In 1819, the Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward ruling recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural born citizens to contract and to enforce contracts. In Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania (1888) SCOTUS ruled that under the designation of ‘person’ that corporations are included in the 14th Amendment.
On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that Hobby Lobby could deny its employees certain health care coverage, in this case contraception, based on religious beliefs. This means that companies can now prohibit or restrict its employees from partaking in actions that are legal under US law but not in line the religious views of the company.
On November 3, 1948, the Chicago Daily Tribune published a banner headline, "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN".The underlying lead paragraph stated: "Dewey and Warren won a sweeping victory in the presidential election yesterday.
In my previous blog article, Campaign Finance Reform going nowhere fast, I covered the wave of spending that followed the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United versus FEC decision.
On Tuesday Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on what has become to be known as "The Hobby Lobby" case. I may be accused of being too hyperbolic, but I believe this case has the potential to redefine the concept of religious freedom for years to come.
". . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.
In an 8-1 decision on Tuesday, the US Supreme Court issued a mostly procedural ruling against Florida's death penalty system, ultimately requiring that the state change how it issues death sentences. The majority opinion, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, came down to procedure. Florida law requires that a jury merely recommend whether a death sentence should be applied in a capital case, with the judge making the final decision on the sentence. The US Supreme Court, in a decision that overturned the Florida Supreme Court, ruled that this scheme violates the Sixth Amendment because it takes away the defendant's right to have his sentence based on a jury's verdict.
In my previous column, I took issue with liberals who take a “purist” view of financial regulation—who believe it’s wrong to appoint regulators or elect lawmakers who take campaign contributions from the financial industry, or who’ve worked in that industry in the past, or who won’t pledge never to work for it in the future. The idea is to keep regulation free of corrupting influence, but in fact their position makes it less likely that we regulate the industry well. I wrote about three of the reasons in my last column: If you worry too much about purity, you lose the inside knowledge of the industry that can make regulators more effective, as well as a personal connection with firms that can actually increase the likelihood they’ll comply with the rules.
In a major defeat for the National Rifle Association, the Supreme Court decided this week not to take up a challenge to one of the toughest gun-control statutes in America, a law on the books in Highland Park, Illinois.
In a powerfully written dissent, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the thinking of some of her fellow justices after the court dismissed a case involving a police officer fatally shooting a fleeing suspect in Texas. According to Sotomayor, it was a case of “shoot first, think later.”
The U.S. Supreme Court will take up a fourth dispute over the Affordable Care Act in five years, as the high court issued a writ of certiorari to hear the objections from faith-based hospitals, colleges, and charities—led by female Catholic organization Little Sisters of the Poor—to the law’s mandate to cover contraceptive care for employees. The case will likely be argued this winter.
Religion, birth control and President Barack Obama's health care overhaul are converging in yet another high-profile dispute at the Supreme Court. The justices on Friday stepped into the fourth legal challenge to the law since Obama signed the Affordable Care Act in 2010. This time, the issue is the arrangement the Obama administration worked out to spare faith-based hospitals, colleges and charities from paying for contraceptives for women covered under their health plans, while still ensuring that those women can obtain birth control at no extra cost as the law requires.
As general counsel of the House of Representatives in 2008, I brought the first successful lawsuit by the chamber against the executive branch. But I do not celebrate the recent House victory in federal District Court allowing it to proceed with its ill-considered litigation over appropriations under the Affordable Care Act, known colloquially as Obamacare. If not overturned, this decision could have seriously adverse consequences for our democracy, as well as for millions of needy Americans.
Last Friday, the powerful United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision evaluating the constitutionality of a ten-part gun control law. Two of the three judges upheld six parts of the law while a dissenting judge would have upheld all ten. The most important provision that was struck down limited the number of handguns a resident could register to one per month. The judges basically held that the Second Amendment cannot tolerate any limitation on the number of firearms Americans are allowed to possess.
Videos on Supreme Court Cases