Free Republic

The Roberts Court certainly seems like a conservative juggernaut. And, yes, from campaign finance to race to religion, it has moved the law dramatically to the right. But Wednesday's Supreme Court decision on cell-phone privacy shows that this isn't the entire story. In a number of significant areas of law, a majority of the Roberts Court will line up behind rulings that are not so much conservative as libertarian, often with a surprisingly progressive bent. That is certainly true of Riley v. California, in which Chief Justice John Roberts, on behalf of his unanimous colleagues, concluded Wednesday that police may...

Three cheers for right-wing obstructionism. Can we have more, please, and louder? This week's unanimous Supreme Court ruling on President Obama's illegal recess appointments is a double smackdown. First, it's a rebuke against arrogant White House power-grabbers who thought they could act with absolute impunity and interminable immunity. Second, the ruling is a reproach of all the establishment pushovers on Capitol Hill who put comity above constitutional principle. In a nutshell: The high court determined that Obama lawlessly exceeded his executive authority when he foisted three members onto the National Labor Relations Board in 2012, during what Democrats declared was...

The Supreme Court today unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that required a 35-foot protest-free "buffer zone" around abortion clinics, saying that the statute violated the First Amendment rights of pro-life protestors. The ruling in McCullen v. Coakley also has implications for municipalities that have imposed their own "buffer zone" laws around abortion clinics. The 2007 law aimed to keep protesters least 35 feet from the entrances of abortion clinics to prevent confrontations, but the US Supreme Court ruled that it went too far and prevented the free speech of law-abiding abortion opponents who want to approach people going to...

(Regarding Cellphones) The Supreme Court has handed down a unanimous decision in Riley v. California, and it's good news for digital privacy advocates. The Court decided that once someone is arrested, the police may not search the person's phone without a warrant. The ruling stated that "the term 'cell phone' is often misleading in shorthand; many of these devices are in fact miniature computers that also happen to have the capacity to be used as a telephone. They could just as easily be called cameras, video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps, or newspapers." Before just...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has limited a president's power to make temporary appointments to fill high-level government jobs. The court said Thursday that President Barack Obama exceeded his authority when he invoked the Constitution's provision on recess appointments to fill slots on the National Labor Relations Board in 2012.

In a 2-to-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Kitchen v. Hebert affirmed a lower court’s ruling holding that traditional marriage laws violate the Constitution. The case will likely soon go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Breitbart News examined this case last year when an Obama-appointed federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah invalidated that state’s law providing that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, comparing such laws to racism and saying they are literally irrational. Despite the fact that neither marriage nor homosexuality is mentioned...

The Supreme Court ruling on Aereo is out, and the court has ruled against the upstart company and in favor of TV broadcasters. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision that had ruled in favor of Aero, a service that lets you stream live network TV. The court found that Aereo's service violated the copyrights of live network TV stations. "This ruling appears sweeping and definitive, determining that Aereo is illegal," the lawyer Tom Goldstein wrote on SCOTUSBlog. The case will have lasting implications for the way content is delivered online. Aereo's technology uses special...

The EPA cannot require that power plants and other facilities seek building or operating permits based solely on the fact of their greenhouse gas emissions, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today. But it ruled 7-2 that any plant (or other stationary source) that already emits impermissibly high levels of other, traditional pollutants can be required to also obtain permits related to greenhouse gas emissions. The ruling does not affect President Obama’s latest proposed rules for greenhouse gas emissions that would require states to reduce their total emissions by 30 percent. Those rules are still in draft form and are subject...

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia takes part in an interview with Chris Wallace on "FOX News Sunday" at the FOX News D.C. Bureau on July 27, 2012 in Washington, DC. Although the Supreme Court declined today to hear a case about religious freedom, it reminded Justice Antonin Scalia, who dissented, about his feelings regarding music and joy and community. Religion, some people believe, "is a personal matter," he wrote. "[I]f it must be given external manifestation, that should not occur in public places where others may be offended." Just like that dreadful rock and roll: I can understand that...

A divided Supreme Court sided with gun control groups and the Obama administration Monday, ruling that the federal ban on "straw" purchases of guns can be enforced even if the ultimate buyer is legally allowed to own a gun. The justices ruled 5-4 that the law applied to a Virginia man who bought a gun with the intention of transferring it to a relative in Pennsylvania who was not prohibited from owning firearms.

Are people who assert their Second Amendment rights by bringing rifles and shotguns into stores and restaurants "weird" and "scary?" At least one staff member at the National Rifle Association (NRA) thought so, and he expressed that view in an online commentary that the organization felt compelled to retract last week after it caused an uproar among gun-rights advocates. To some extent, the episode reflects divisions among Second Amendment activists, many of whom view the NRA, despite its reputation for adamantly resisting gun control, as insufficiently zealous. But the brouhaha also highlights a shift in American attitudes regarding the public...

A rather wonky interstate commerce case has been granted a writ of certiorari and will be heard by the Supreme Court during the fall session. The reason this particular petition should interest you is that it has the potential to affect so many people, specifically those who derive income from any sources outside the state where they live. As explained in this Forbes article, the fundamental question being put to the court is as follows:Does the United States Constitution prohibit a state from taxing all the income of its residents — wherever earned — by mandating a credit for...

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” —Martin Niemoller Despite what some may think, the Constitution is no magical incantation against government wrongdoing. Indeed, it’s only as effective as those who abide by it. However, without courts willing to uphold...

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has been quietly revising its decisions years after they were issued, altering the law of the land without public notice. The revisions include “truly substantive changes in factual statements and legal reasoning,” said Richard J. Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard and the author of a new study examining the phenomenon.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously smacked down the Illinois Supreme Court in President Barack Obama’s home state for violating the Fifth Amendment. Almost always the Supreme Court chooses to take a case (called granting a writ of certiorari) from a federal appeals court or a state supreme court by setting the case for briefing and argument. The Court receives 8,000 petitions for certiorari per year, and it grants fewer than 80.Yet in this case of Martinez v. Illinois, the justices took the very rare step of deciding the whole case just based on the petition filed with them requesting review. The...

The question found in the title of this post seems self-evident, or so I’d have thought. In questions of constitutionality and the laws of the land, the Supreme Court has the final word. (At least unless and until a later court revises the position.) But Dr. Joyner examines a study from Adam Liptak at the Gray Lady which indicates that precisely how final their opinions are and particularly when they become final is a bit more fluid than one might think. The Supreme Court has been quietly revising its decisions years after they were issued, altering the law of the...

Talk of religious freedom and limiting it, seems to be everywhere these days. The US Supreme Court affirmed the right recently of townships to say a public prayer before a local meeting, which seems rather like declaring the sun’s right to rise in the East, if you consult the Founding Fathers’ writings – and their practices. Meantime, atheist devotees – if there is such a thing as a formal devotee to atheism, since that might make them religious followers of non-worship – are trying to create the first non-religious religious chaplain in the military. Confusion seems to abound about...

Yesterday’s ruling striking down Oregon’s gay-marriage ban came from an Obama appointee. Today’s ruling striking down Pennsylvania’s ban comes from a Bush appointee, one whose confirmation was backed by Rick Santorum no less. Different judges, different political leanings, a slightly different legal posture (Oregon’s ban was part of the state constitution, Pennsylvania’s was merely a state statute, although each state’s AG refused to defend the law in court), but none of it mattered. Like McShane in Oregon, Jones provided for no stay of his ruling, meaning it goes into effect immediately — and same-sex couples should be able to...

Sahil KapurMay 19, 2014, 8:13 AM U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder speaks on stage during the annual meeting of the American Bar Association in San Francisco, California August 12, 2013 In a rare move, Attorney General Eric Holder took direct aim at U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts on issues of race during a commencement speech Saturday. "Chief Justice John Roberts has argued that the path to ending racial discrimination is to give less consideration to the issue of race altogether. This presupposes that racial discrimination is at a sufficiently low ebb that it doesn’t need to be actively confronted," Holder...

Our government has been infected by Federal Supremacists. They commonly assert that the Supreme Court has the power to ultimately interpret the Constitution through judicial review and therefore sovereignly determine the limits of the power delegated to the federal government. They sometimes assert that federal law itself is superior to the Constitution. In reality, the Supreme Court does not have the authority to limit or expand the power of government. Neither does Congress have the authority to pass a law that is contrary to the Constitution itself. To allow such action means that the Constitution has NO MEANING and the...