Thursday, August 09, 2007
Visit Our New Site
We have moved! The content originally posted on this site is now being hosted on our new blog, Speak Truth to Power. Speak Truth To Power is a timely collection of insightful commentaries, news items, and video interviews brought to you by The Rutherford Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to the defense of civil liberties and human rights. Click here to visit.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Court Supports Bush in Wiretap Suit
The Los Angeles Times reports, “A federal appeals court on Friday handed the Bush administration a major victory, ruling that plaintiffs who had challenged its domestic spying program did not have legal standing to do so.” According to the report, “The 2-1 decision by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati sent the case back to a judge in Detroit, who last year ruled the program unconstitutional. The panel ordered U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor to dismiss the case, but it did not rule on the program's legality.”
Monday, July 02, 2007
Supreme Court to Review Guantanamo Cases
“Rejecting Bush administration arguments,” reports the Associated Press, “the Supreme Court reversed course and agreed Friday to review whether Guantanamo Bay detainees can use the civilian court system to challenge their indefinite confinement.” Although the court did not indicate what changed the justices' minds about considering the issue, the report explains that last week lawyers for the detainees filed a statement from a military officer in which he described the inadequacy of the process the U.S. military has been using for the past four years to classify the detainees as enemy combatants.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Divided Court Limits Use of Race by School Districts
Today’s Washington Post reports, “A divided Supreme Court yesterday restricted the ability of public school districts to use race to determine which schools students can attend, a decision that could sharply limit integration programs across the nation.” According to the report, “The nine justices split decisively along ideological grounds, with a five-justice majority ruling that school admission programs in Seattle and Louisville violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection to individuals.”
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Taxpayers Can't Sue Over Faith-Based Initiatives
The Christian Science Monitor has this report on yesterday’s Supreme Court opinion which seemingly closes the courthouse doors to citizens who wish to challenge government assistance to religion as a violation of the First Amendment. The report begins, “Taxpayers may not sue the White House to challenge alleged violations of the separation of church and state. In a case that challenged part of President Bush's faith-based initiative program, the US Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the suit – closing an avenue for enforcing the First Amendment clause prohibiting any federal law ‘respecting an establishment of religion.’”
Justices Let Schools Ban Pro-Drug Signs
The Los Angeles Times reports, “School principals may punish students for displaying signs that favor the use of illegal drugs, the Supreme Court said Monday in a narrow decision limiting the free-speech rights of students.” According to the report, “The 5-4 ruling rejected a free-speech claim from a former high school student in Juneau, Alaska, who was suspended for unfurling a banner outside school that read ‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus.’”
Supreme Court Rejects Election Ad Restrictions
“The Supreme Court on Monday seriously weakened a key feature of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, possibly ushering in a new era of high court disapproval of measures aimed at reining in campaign excesses,” reports Law.com. “By a 5-4 vote,” the report explains, “the Court said that the 2003 law’s ban on pre-election ads that mention candidates by name and are paid for directly by corporations and unions was unconstitutional — at least as it was applied to the advertisements at issue in the case before it.”
Court Rules Coach’s Violations Are Not a Form of Free Speech
“The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the claim by a high school football powerhouse in Tennessee that its coach’s recruiting violations were a form of free speech that could not be penalized by the state athletic association,” reports The New York Times. According to the report, “The 9-to-0 opinion removed a cloud over the ability of school sports associations to impose recruiting rules on their member schools and to punish violators.”
Sentencing Guidelines 'Reasonable,' Justices Rule
The Washington Post reports, “The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that criminal sentences within guidelines set by a federal commission are generally entitled to be upheld on appeal, a decision that limits legal options for defendants who feel that they have been punished too harshly.” “By a vote of 8 to 1,” the article explains, “the court held that, even though it recently ruled that the sentencing ranges set by the U.S. Sentencing Commission are no longer mandatory, judges who follow them may be presumed to have acted reasonably.”
Cops Can't Seize Passenger After an Illegal Stop
The San Francisco Chronicle reports, “Police who illegally stop a car can't hold the passengers for questioning and possible searches, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday in a case from Northern California.” According to the report, “The unanimous decision said a passenger has the same right as a driver to argue in court that police had no legitimate reason for a traffic stop.”
High Court Rulings Come Down on Side of Business
USA Today reports, “As the Supreme Court nears the end of its annual term, a trend has emerged in favor of business interests and at a cost, in some cases, to employees and consumers.” “Under new Chief Justice John Roberts,” explains the report, “the justices limited when employers can be sued for pay disparities based on a worker's sex or race, prevented states from regulating mortgage-lending subsidiaries of national banks and curtailed the avenues for class-action claims in the antitrust and securities areas.”
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Justices Agree: No Overtime for Home-Care Work
USA Today reports, “The Supreme Court ruled Monday that home-care workers are not entitled to overtime pay under federal law, in a case closely watched by health care businesses, their employees and advocates for the elderly.” According to the report, “In an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer, the court reversed a lower court's ruling that would have ensured that home-care aides who are hired by companies, rather than by families themselves, were not exempt from minimum wage and overtime laws.”
Court to Weigh Disparities in Cocaine Laws
According to The New York Times, “The Supreme Court, expanding its review of federal criminal sentencing, agreed Monday to consider the proper judicial response to the sharp disparity in the way the law treats crack cocaine and cocaine powder.” The report explains, “The court will address a growing rebellion among judges who have been issuing sentences lighter than those called for under the federal sentencing guidelines for criminals convicted of crack cocaine offenses.”
Court Orders Release of "Enemy Combatant" in U.S.
“President George W. Bush cannot order the military to seize and indefinitely detain a Qatari national and suspected al Qaeda operative, the only person being held in the United States as an ‘enemy combatant,’ an appeals court ruled on Monday.” “In a major setback for Bush's policies in the war on terrorism adopted after the September 11 attacks,” Reuters reports, “the appellate panel ruled 2-1 the U.S. government had no evidence to treat Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri as an ‘enemy combatant.’”
Suit to Decide Workplace 'Hate Speech'
The Washington Times has this report about a case the U.S. Supreme Court could consider that has the potential to redefine the way the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee is applied in government workplaces. The report explains, “The words ‘natural family,’ ‘marriage’ and ‘union of a man and a woman’ can be punished as ‘hate speech’ in government workplaces, according to a lawsuit that is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Federal Appeals Court Rejects Michigan’s Ban on a Controversial Method of Abortion
The New York Times reports, “The State of Michigan’s third attempt in a decade to ban a procedure known among anti-abortion activists as partial-birth abortion was declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court on Monday, less than two months after the Supreme Court narrowly upheld a federal law banning the method.” According to the report, “The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said the Michigan statute, the Legal Birth Definition Act, was worded so broadly that in addition to banning the procedure, it would also prohibit other legal abortion methods.”
|
|
