MORE ARTICLES FROM ‘Supreme Court Case’
Thurgood Marshall had a gift for explaining the importance of the First Amendment in different contexts, such as in these five examples.
Justices decline review of atheist’s claim against Illinois grant given to refurbish 111-foot-high Bald Knob Cross of Peace.
At issue: whether the government can require AIDS groups receiving grants to state their opposition to prostitution and sex trafficking as a condition of funding.
After Supreme Court’s U.S. v. Stevens ruling struck down law criminalizing animal-cruelty videos, new, narrower law may still be vulnerable on free-speech grounds, experts say.
4th Circuit had upheld off-campus program allowing students to earn high school credit, saying district properly accommodated religion without establishing it.
Justices reverse decision saying sheriff’s office in South Carolina wasn’t required to pay attorney’s fees in lawsuit involving protesters who were told they couldn’t hold up signs showing aborted fetuses.
Closely watched dispute pits Thai graduate student, who resold in the U.S. textbooks purchased overseas, against publishers; music, movie industries, Costco, eBay, Google, art museums weigh in on both sides.
Unless the Justice Department appeals and wins, Boston College will not have to hand over interviews recorded with a convicted Irish Republican Army bomber.
Case stems from federal surveillance rules that include legal liability protection for telecom companies that allegedly helped the U.S. spy on Americans without warrants.
In their high court briefs in McBurney v. Young, news organizations and public-advocacy groups stress that law restricting access by out-of-staters impedes newsgathering and the national ‘information industry.’
Two out-of-state residents say it is unconstitutional not to allow everyone use of a state’s FOIA law.
Supreme Court won’t consider challenges to Maine’s campaign-disclosure law, Washington’s top-2 primary system or Minnesota’s rules for judicial candidates.
News items about fraud indictments and a Pentagon website suggest there’s no need to rewrite the Stolen Valor Act, which the Supreme Court struck down.
The Supreme Court’s six First Amendment-related rulings followed a well-established pattern, including wins, losses and a ‘no-decision.’
Justice may have reached same conclusion as majority — finding that Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional — but how he did so is troubling.