Notable and ignoble Supreme Court cases

[FA_Q2]

Not indefinite prison...

... immediate deportation.

Either they have their papers or they don't.

That is not what the case was about though as far as I could tell. It was about people being jailed without recourse. Your quote also included the fact that many are not even illegal: "including many who are legal residents of the United States."

 

[waltky]

Judge can overrule jury recommending life sentence and impose the death penalty...

The Latest: Alabama executes man who killed clerk in 1994
December 9, 2016 — The Latest on the scheduled execution of an Alabama inmate (all times local):

11:15 p.m.

A man convicted of killing a convenience store clerk has been put to death in Alabama, hours after the state's execution plans were twice put on temporary hold by the U.S. Supreme Court. Authorities say 45-year-old Ronald Bert Smith Jr. was pronounced dead at 11:05 p.m. CST Thursday after a lethal injection at a southwest Alabama prison. Smith heaved and coughed for 13 minutes during the 30-minute-long execution. He clenched his fists and raised his head during the early part of the procedure. A prison guard performed two consciousness checks before administering the lethal drugs. During the first one, Smith moved his arm. Smith was convicted of capital murder in the fatal shooting of Casey Wilson at a Huntsville convenience store in 1994.

9:15 p.m.

The U.S. Supreme Court has again ruled that Alabama can move forward with the execution of an inmate convicted of killing a convenience store clerk more than two decades ago. The Supreme Court ruled late Thursday that the execution could proceed, after issuing two temporary delays earlier in the night. Ronald Bert Smith Jr. is scheduled to receive a lethal injection at 9:45 p.m. CST. Smith was convicted of murder in the 1994 shooting death of Huntsville convenience store clerk Casey Wilson during a robbery. Smith's lawyers had asked the Supreme Court to halt the execution plan to review whether a judge should have been able to override the jury's recommendation and impose the death penalty. The jury had recommended life imprisonment by a 7-5 vote. The state argued the sentence was appropriate and legally sound. The latest decision from the court capped a whirlwind of filings and orders Thursday evening. The execution was originally scheduled for 6 p.m. CST but was delayed twice. Four justices wanted to issue a permanent halt, but five were needed. Smith's attorneys made another application for a stay after the court's latest decision.

Alabama Department of Corrections shows Ronald Bert Smith Jr.. Smith, who is scheduled to be executed Thursday, Dec. 8, 2016 for the 1994 slaying of Huntsville store clerk Casey Wilson, is asking the governor to stop his execution because a judge imposed a death sentence over the jury's 7-5 recommendation of life imprisonment.​

8 p.m.

The U.S. Supreme Court has again temporarily halted the planned execution of an Alabama inmate. In Washington, the court issued a second temporary stay late Thursday after attorneys for inmate Ronald Bert Smith, Jr. requested that the justices reconsider an earlier decision to let the execution proceed. Smith, now 45, was convicted of murder in the 1994 shooting death of Huntsville convenience store clerk Casey Wilson during a robbery. Smith's lawyers had asked the Supreme Court to halt the execution plan to review whether a judge should have been able to override the jury's recommendation and impose the death penalty. The jury had recommended life imprisonment by a 7-5 vote. The court narrowly ruled Thursday evening that the execution could proceed, although four liberal justices said they would have voted to grant the stay, according to an order emailed by the court giving no further explanation. Smith's attorneys swiftly asked for a reconsideration

7:30 p.m.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said the planned execution of an Alabama inmate can proceed. The court narrowly ruled Thursday evening that the execution could proceed. Four liberal justices said they would have voted to grant the stay, according to an order emailed by the court giving no further explanation. Forty-five-year-old Ronald Bert Smith Jr. is scheduled to receive a lethal injection Thursday evening. Smith was convicted of murder in the 1994 death of Huntsville convenience store clerk Casey Wilson, who was shot in the head during a robbery. Smith's lawyers had asked the Supreme Court to halt the execution to review whether a judge should have been able to override the jury's recommendation and impose the death penalty. The jury had recommended life imprisonment by a 7-5 vote. Earlier, the Supreme Court had delayed the 6 p.m. CST execution to consider the request. Prison officials said Smith's execution would be carried out later Thursday evening.

6:15 p.m.

 

[waltky]

SCOTUS passes on "Sister Wives" case...

US Supreme Court declines to hear polygamy case
January 23, 2017 | Washington (AFP) - The US Supreme Court has declined to hear the case of a man and his four wives -- stars of a reality TV show -- challenging a ban on polygamy in their native state of Utah.

Kody Brown is legally married to Meri but also lives with Janelle, Christine and Robyn. They are members of a fringe religious group, related to Mormon fundamentalism, with polygamy as a core tenet of their beliefs. Brown and his wives have battled in the courts for seven years against a law in Utah banning polygamy, arguing that it infringes on their freedom of speech and religion. They are the stars of the show "Sister Wives," which airs on TLC and documents the life of a "plural" family. In December 2013, the Browns won a surprising legal victory when a federal court ruled that Utah's law against bigamy was unconstitutional. But an appeals court overturned that judgment in 2016.

The US Supreme Court has declined to hear the case of a man and his four wives -- stars of a reality TV show -- challenging a ban on polygamy in their native state of Utah​

The Supreme Court in Washington declined to add the case to its schedule Monday, without giving any reason for its decision, thereby leaving the appeal court's decision in place. The high court has not ruled on a polygamy case since 1878, when it declared that a law prohibiting bigamy was valid. Jonathan Turley, a lawyer for the Brown family, said they were "disappointed... but not surprised" by the Supreme Court's decision declining to take the case. "The decision will obviously not end the struggle for equal protection and due process under the law. The Browns have remained committed to that cause and will continue to advocate on behalf of religious freedom and plural families," he said in a statement.

Tens of thousands of Mormon fundamentalists, mostly living in the western part of the United States, continue to practice polygamy. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the formal name of the Mormon church, has banned polygamy since 1890.

US Supreme Court declines to hear polygamy case

 

[waltky]

SCOTUS scuppers NC voter ID law...

U.S. Supreme Court Effectively Kills N.C.’s Voter ID Law
May 15, 2017 | Liberal activists are celebrating the end of North Carolina's 2013 election law, which required photo ID at the polls; eliminated same-day voter registration; and reduced the state’s early-voting period by one week.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a federal appeals court decision that found North Carolina’s election law discriminated against African-Americans. The Supreme Court refusal means North Carolina has exhausted all its appeals, and the 2016 ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals stands. “This law, enacted with what the appeals court called discriminatory intent and ‘almost surgical precision’ targeting African-American voters, is meeting its much-deserved demise,” said Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “An ugly chapter in voter suppression is finally closing.” “We are grateful that the Supreme Court has decided to allow the Fourth Circuit’s ruling to stand, confirming that discrimination has no place in our democracy and elections,” said Allison Riggs, senior staff attorney with the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. “This ruling sends a strong message that lawmakers in North Carolina should stop enacting laws that discriminate based on race.”

The Democrat National Committee cheered the end of what it called a “racist” law. “That’s why we’re creating a voter protection and empowerment unit at the DNC to stand up and resist the ongoing assault on the right to vote from Trump and the GOP,” Chairman Tom Perez said in a statement on Monday. “We can’t trust Trump, Jeff Sessions, or anyone in this administration to protect access to the ballot box. Today, democracy triumphed over discrimination.” Last year, when a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the election law, Republican leaders of the North Carolina Legislature wrote: “Since today’s decision by three partisan Democrats ignores legal precedent, ignores the fact that other federal courts have used North Carolina's law as a model, and ignores the fact that a majority of other states have similar protections in place, we can only wonder if the intent is to reopen the door for voter fraud, potentially allowing fellow Democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton and Roy Cooper to steal the election.”

Senate Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) and House Speaker Tim Moore (R-Cleveland) also said the voter ID law would have ensured that any North Carolina citizen who wants to vote would have that opportunity. The law would have established a list of valid government-issued photo IDs that voters could present at their polling places; allowed anyone without a photo ID to obtain one at no cost through the Department of Motor Vehicles; and allowed anyone who still had difficulty obtaining a valid ID to fill out a reasonable impediment affidavit and still have their vote counted. It also would have aligned North Carolina with other states on matters of same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting. “More than 30 other states have voter ID requirements, and a similar law was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in 2008,” Berger and Moore noted last July.

They also said opponents of the law “failed to produce a single witness who would be unable to vote under the law in court.” President Trump carried North Carolina in the November election, getting around 50 percent of the vote to Hillary Clinton’s 46 percent.

U.S. Supreme Court Effectively Kills N.C.’s Voter ID Law

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd says, "Yeah - but dey protect Muslims' faith like Hasan of Ft. Hood...

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From Marine Over Religious Liberty
5 Jun 2017 - At issue was the extent a federal law on religious freedom protects members of the armed forces.

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from a former Marine who was court-martialed in part for expressing her Christian faith in the workplace. Lower courts had concluded orders from her military superiors did not constitute a "substantial burden" on her First Amendment rights. The justices on Monday upheld her court-martial without comment. At issue was the extent a federal law on religious freedom protects members of the armed forces like Monifa Sterling, who continued posting biblical verses at her desk, despite orders from a superior that she remove them. The intersection of free speech on government property, especially within a military context, made this appeal closely watched by a number of advocates on both sides of the debate.

The First Liberty Institute, which represented Sterling, lamented the Supreme Court's call on Monday. "Because the Supreme Court did not decide to review the case, the travesty below by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces will now stand," Kelly Shackelford, CEO and chief counsel for First Liberty, said in a statement. "The military court's outrageous decision means federal judges and military officials can strip our service members of their constitutional rights just because they don't think someone's religious beliefs are important enough to be protected. Our service members deserve better."

Lance Cpl. Monifa Sterling​

Sterling, who was a lance corporal stationed at Camp Lejeune, N.C., originally was court-martialed for various offenses relating to separate incidents -- including disrespecting a superior officer, disobeying lawful orders, and failing to report to an assigned duty. But the part of the case that fueled her court challenge involved orders to remove a personalized version of the biblical phrase from Isiah 54:17: "No weapon formed against thee shall prosper." Sterling taped the verses in three spots on her workspace. Court testimony said Sterling's superior repeatedly ordered her to remove the signs -- and when she refused, trashed them.

In its original 4-1 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces turned away Sterling's case. "We reject the argument that every interference with a religiously motivated act constitutes a substantial burden on the exercise of religion," the court said. Sterling was ultimately reduced in rank and given a bad-conduct discharge -- and later left the service. Her legal team acknowledged Sterling did not ask for permission to post or repost the verses but called the earlier ruling against her "shameful" and "wrong."

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From Marine Over Religious Liberty | Military.com

 

[FA_Q2]

Context is important. Just that snippet does not really establish any kind of clear reason that she would have been able to post a verse of anything there.

 

[waltky]

No ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment...

Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment
June 19, 2017 - From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

And the justices made clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions. In Matal, the government refused to register “The Slants” as a band’s trademark, on the ground that the name might be seen as demeaning to Asian Americans. The government wasn’t trying to forbid the band from using the mark; it was just denying it certain protections that trademarks get against unauthorized use by third parties. But even in this sort of program, the court held, viewpoint discrimination — including against allegedly racially offensive viewpoints — is unconstitutional. And this no-viewpoint-discrimination principle has long been seen as applying to exclusion of speakers from universities, denial of tax exemptions to nonprofits, and much more.

(Justice Neil Gorsuch wasn’t on the court when the case was argued, so only eight justices participated.)

Watch more!

Asian-American dance rock band The Slants talk about their Supreme Court case, including a supporter they'd rather not have: Dan Snyder.

Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment

 

[waltky]

Hate speech doesn't violate the 1st amendment, but disparaging others does...

Supreme Court: Rejecting trademarks that ‘disparage’ others violates the First Amendment
June 19,`17 - The federal government has violated the First Amendment by refusing to register trademarks that officials consider disparaging, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday in a decision that provides a boost to the Washington Redskins’ efforts to hang on to the team’s controversial name.

The ruling came in a case that involved an Asian American rock group called the Slants, which tried to register the band’s name in 2011. The band was turned down by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office because of a law against registering trademarks that are likely to disparage people or groups. In a ruling against the government, the court said the “disparagement clause” of the federal trademark law was not constitutional, even though it was written evenhandedly, prohibiting trademarks that insult any group. “This provision violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in a section of the opinion supported by all participating justices. “It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”

The ruling — and a second one Monday that struck down a North Carolina law restricting registered sex offenders from social-media sites — bolsters the reputation of the Supreme Court as protector of First Amendment rights. “At a time when some have claimed that speech may and should be regulated or censored if it is offensive, hurtful, or dangerous, the justices’ firm insistence that governments may not silence messages they dislike is noteworthy and important,” Notre Dame law professor Richard W. Garnett said in a statement. Redskins owner Daniel Snyder was more succinct in a statement: “I am THRILLED. Hail to the Redskins.” The team was not involved in the case at hand, although the court several times mentioned an amicus brief filed by the Redskins.

The case centered on the 1946 Lanham Act, which in part prohibits registration of a trademark that “may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.” But the founder of the Slants, Simon Tam, said the point of the band’s name is just the opposite — an attempt to reclaim a slur and use it as “a badge of pride.” In a Facebook post after the decision, Tam wrote: “After an excruciating legal battle that has spanned nearly eight years, we’re beyond humbled and thrilled to have won this case at the Supreme Court. This journey has always been much bigger than our band: it’s been about the rights of all marginalized communities to determine what’s best for ourselves.”

Tam lost in the first legal rounds. But then a majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the law violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. The government may not “penalize private speech merely because it disapproves of the message it conveys,” a majority of that court found. Free-speech advocates had supported the Slants, and the court’s decision seemed likely from the oral arguments. But some ethnic and minority groups worried about what kinds of trademarks the government would now be forced to register. “It seems this decision will indeed open the floodgates to applications for all sorts of potentially offensive and hateful marks,” said Lisa Simpson, an intellectual-property lawyer in New York. While unified on the bottom line, the two groups of justices wrote separate opinions in support of the ruling.

MORE

See also:

Will Asian American band’s First Amendment argument resonate with Supreme Court?
January 15,`17 — The government doesn’t know what to make of the Slants, the all Asian American, Chinatown dance-rock band at the center of this term’s most vexing Supreme Court free-speech case.

One branch of the federal government has for years fought the band’s effort to register a trademark for its cheeky name. In a case going before the justices this week, the Patent and Trademark Office argues that a decades-old law forbids official recognition of trademarks that “may disparage” members of a particular ethnic group — in the Slants’ case, fellow Asians. But other parts of the government love the Slants. The Defense Department sent the group to Bosnia and Kosovo to entertain troops; MPs were called when the party went on too long.

The White House is into them, too: The Slants were included in a compilation of Asian American artists that is part of an anti-bullying initiative — “deeply ironic,” says band founder Simon Tam, because the song chosen is “an open letter to the trademark office.” Which must be a first for a Supreme Court plaintiff. At Track Town Records in this college town, where the Slants were putting finishing touches on their new EP, “The Band Who Must Not Be Named,” Tam reflected on the mixed reaction. “One branch of government is celebrating us for our work in the Asian American community, and the other area of government is calling us racist,” he said. “But I’m kind of used to it at this point.”

Simon Tam says he decided to name his band the Slants because “it would be this play on words — because we could talk about our slant on life, what it’s like to be people of color, to be Asian American.”​

Contradictions abound in the case, Lee v. Tam. For one, a victory for the Slants would be a godsend for the Washington Redskins, whose legal battle to hold on to its revoked trademark has been put on hold pending the outcome. The band members abhor the Washington nickname and wince when the team’s fate is linked to their own. “I don’t want to be associated with Dan Snyder,” Tam said, referring to the team’s owner. Another oddity, at least to the band: The trademark office has registered several versions of the word “slant,” but turned down Tam’s application specifically because of the band’s Asian American connection.

Some Asian American groups support Tam’s attempt to reappropriate a slur and make it a point of pride, as other artists of color have done. Tam’s cause has united the American Civil Liberties Union and the conservative religious law organization Alliance Defending Freedom. But groups of minority lawyers oppose them, and a coalition of liberal, minority members of Congress say that the First Amendment shouldn’t force the federal government to give a stamp of approval to hateful speech. Today the Slants, the worry goes, tomorrow the n-word.

MORE

 

[waltky]

SCOTUS says No to sex offender social media ban...

Supreme Court strikes down sex offender social media ban
June 19,`17 | WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck down a North Carolina law Monday that bars convicted sex offenders from Facebook, Twitter and other popular sites.

The justices ruled unanimously in favor of North Carolina resident Lester Packingham Jr. His Facebook boast about beating a traffic ticket led to his conviction for violating a 2008 law aimed at keeping sex offenders off internet sites children might use. The court rejected the state’s argument that the law deals with the virtual world in the same way that states keep sex offenders out of playgrounds and other places children visit. “In sum, to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas cautioned that Kennedy’s “loose rhetoric” could prevent states from taking any measures to restrict convicted sex offenders on the internet. “This language is bound to be interpreted by some to mean that the states are largely powerless to restrict even the most dangerous sexual predators from visiting any internet sires, including for example internet dating sites,” Alito wrote for the three justices.

Louisiana is the only other state with a law similar to North Carolina’s, although the Louisiana law applies only to people convicted of sex crimes with children, according to a legal brief the state filed with the Supreme Court. But many states have laws that require sex offenders to provide information about their internet use to authorities. Separately, many states limit internet use as a condition of parole or probation. Packingham originally pleaded guilty in 2002 to taking indecent liberties with a child. He had been indicted for the statutory rape of a 13-year-old and ordered to register as a sex offender.

In 2010, a Durham police officer was using his own Facebook account to look for people who shouldn’t be on the site. He came across a post from Packingham, who used an alias but also included a photo of himself and linked to an account used by his father and namesake. The officer found six other registered sex offenders in the same session, a lawyer for North Carolina told the justices when the case was argued in February. “No fine. No Court costs. No nothing. Praise be to God. Wow. Thanks, Jesus,” Packingham wrote in the post that led to his conviction and suspended prison sentence.

Supreme Court strikes down sex offender social media ban

 

[FA_Q2]

Hate speech doesn't violate the 1st amendment, but disparaging others does...

Supreme Court: Rejecting trademarks that ‘disparage’ others violates the First Amendment
June 19,`17 - The federal government has violated the First Amendment by refusing to register trademarks that officials consider disparaging, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday in a decision that provides a boost to the Washington Redskins’ efforts to hang on to the team’s controversial name.

The ruling came in a case that involved an Asian American rock group called the Slants, which tried to register the band’s name in 2011. The band was turned down by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office because of a law against registering trademarks that are likely to disparage people or groups. In a ruling against the government, the court said the “disparagement clause” of the federal trademark law was not constitutional, even though it was written evenhandedly, prohibiting trademarks that insult any group. “This provision violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in a section of the opinion supported by all participating justices. “It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”

The ruling — and a second one Monday that struck down a North Carolina law restricting registered sex offenders from social-media sites — bolsters the reputation of the Supreme Court as protector of First Amendment rights. “At a time when some have claimed that speech may and should be regulated or censored if it is offensive, hurtful, or dangerous, the justices’ firm insistence that governments may not silence messages they dislike is noteworthy and important,” Notre Dame law professor Richard W. Garnett said in a statement. Redskins owner Daniel Snyder was more succinct in a statement: “I am THRILLED. Hail to the Redskins.” The team was not involved in the case at hand, although the court several times mentioned an amicus brief filed by the Redskins.

The case centered on the 1946 Lanham Act, which in part prohibits registration of a trademark that “may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.” But the founder of the Slants, Simon Tam, said the point of the band’s name is just the opposite — an attempt to reclaim a slur and use it as “a badge of pride.” In a Facebook post after the decision, Tam wrote: “After an excruciating legal battle that has spanned nearly eight years, we’re beyond humbled and thrilled to have won this case at the Supreme Court. This journey has always been much bigger than our band: it’s been about the rights of all marginalized communities to determine what’s best for ourselves.”

Tam lost in the first legal rounds. But then a majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the law violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. The government may not “penalize private speech merely because it disapproves of the message it conveys,” a majority of that court found. Free-speech advocates had supported the Slants, and the court’s decision seemed likely from the oral arguments. But some ethnic and minority groups worried about what kinds of trademarks the government would now be forced to register. “It seems this decision will indeed open the floodgates to applications for all sorts of potentially offensive and hateful marks,” said Lisa Simpson, an intellectual-property lawyer in New York. While unified on the bottom line, the two groups of justices wrote separate opinions in support of the ruling.

MORE

See also:

Will Asian American band’s First Amendment argument resonate with Supreme Court?
January 15,`17 — The government doesn’t know what to make of the Slants, the all Asian American, Chinatown dance-rock band at the center of this term’s most vexing Supreme Court free-speech case.

One branch of the federal government has for years fought the band’s effort to register a trademark for its cheeky name. In a case going before the justices this week, the Patent and Trademark Office argues that a decades-old law forbids official recognition of trademarks that “may disparage” members of a particular ethnic group — in the Slants’ case, fellow Asians. But other parts of the government love the Slants. The Defense Department sent the group to Bosnia and Kosovo to entertain troops; MPs were called when the party went on too long.

The White House is into them, too: The Slants were included in a compilation of Asian American artists that is part of an anti-bullying initiative — “deeply ironic,” says band founder Simon Tam, because the song chosen is “an open letter to the trademark office.” Which must be a first for a Supreme Court plaintiff. At Track Town Records in this college town, where the Slants were putting finishing touches on their new EP, “The Band Who Must Not Be Named,” Tam reflected on the mixed reaction. “One branch of government is celebrating us for our work in the Asian American community, and the other area of government is calling us racist,” he said. “But I’m kind of used to it at this point.”

Simon Tam says he decided to name his band the Slants because “it would be this play on words — because we could talk about our slant on life, what it’s like to be people of color, to be Asian American.”​

Contradictions abound in the case, Lee v. Tam. For one, a victory for the Slants would be a godsend for the Washington Redskins, whose legal battle to hold on to its revoked trademark has been put on hold pending the outcome. The band members abhor the Washington nickname and wince when the team’s fate is linked to their own. “I don’t want to be associated with Dan Snyder,” Tam said, referring to the team’s owner. Another oddity, at least to the band: The trademark office has registered several versions of the word “slant,” but turned down Tam’s application specifically because of the band’s Asian American connection.

Some Asian American groups support Tam’s attempt to reappropriate a slur and make it a point of pride, as other artists of color have done. Tam’s cause has united the American Civil Liberties Union and the conservative religious law organization Alliance Defending Freedom. But groups of minority lawyers oppose them, and a coalition of liberal, minority members of Congress say that the First Amendment shouldn’t force the federal government to give a stamp of approval to hateful speech. Today the Slants, the worry goes, tomorrow the n-word.

MORE

It is sad that this was even a case in the first place - the first amendment is crystal clear here and the government does not have the power to limit what a group may or may not call themselves.

The fact that it was a unanimous ruling should finally put to bed the asinine move against the Redskins from the government.

 

[waltky]

The Donald gets most of what he wanted on travel ban...

U.S. Supreme Court breathes new life into Trump's travel ban
Mon Jun 26, 2017 | The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by reviving parts of a travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority countries that he said is needed for national security but that opponents decry as discriminatory.

The justices narrowed the scope of lower court rulings that had completely blocked key parts of a March 6 executive order that Trump had said was needed to prevent terrorism in the United States, allowing his temporary ban to go into effect for people with no strong ties such as family or business to the United States. [tmsnrt.rs/2seb3bb] The court issued its order on the last day of its current term and agreed to hear oral arguments during its next term starting in October so it can decide finally whether the ban is lawful in a major test of presidential powers.

U.S. President Donald Trump takes the stage for a rally at the U.S. Cellular Center in Cedar Rapids, Iowa​

In a statement, Trump called the high court's action "a clear victory for our national security," saying the justices allowed the travel suspension to become largely effective. "As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm. I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive," Trump added. Trump's March 6 order called for a blanket 90-day ban on people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees while the government implemented stronger vetting procedures. The court allowed a limited version of the refugee ban, which had also been blocked by courts, to go into effect.

Trump issued the order amid rising international concern about attacks carried out by Islamist militants like those in Paris, London, Brussels, Berlin and other cities. But challengers said no one from the affected countries had carried out attacks in the United States. Federal courts said the travel ban violated federal immigration law and was discriminatory against Muslims in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Critics called it a discriminatory "Muslim ban." Ahmed al-Nasi, an official in Yemen’s Ministry of Expatriate Affairs, voiced disappointment. "We believe it will not help in confronting terrorism and extremism, but rather will increase the feeling among the nationals of these countries that they are all being targeted, especially given that Yemen is an active partner of the United States in the war on terrorism and that there are joint operations against terrorist elements in Yemen," he said.

A family embraces each other as members arrive at Washington Dulles International Airport after the U.S. Supreme Court granted parts of the Trump administration's emergency request to put its travel ban into effect later in the week pending judicial review in the autumn, in Dulles, Virginia​

Groups that challenged the ban, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said that most people from the affected countries seeking entry to the United States would have the required connections. But they voiced concern the administration would interpret the ban as broadly as it could. "It's going to be very important for us over this intervening period to make sure the government abides by the terms of the order and does not try to use it as a back door into implementing the full-scale Muslim ban that it's been seeking to implement," said Omar Jadwat, an ACLU lawyer. During the 2016 presidential race, Trump campaigned for "a total and complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the United States. The travel ban was a signature policy of Trump's first few months as president.

'BONA FIDE RELATIONSHIP'

U.S. top court backs church in major religious rights case
Mon Jun 26, 2017 | Churches and other religious entities cannot be flatly denied public money even in states where constitutions explicitly ban such funding, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a major religious rights case that narrows the separation of church and state.

The justices, in a 7-2 ruling, sided with Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Missouri, which sued after being denied access to a state grant program that helps nonprofit groups buy rubber playground surfaces made from recycled tires. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court's majority, said that "the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution" and "cannot stand." Missouri's constitution prohibits "any church, sect or denomination of religion" or clergy member from receiving state money, language that goes further than the U.S. Constitution's separation of church and state.

Activists rally outside U.S. Supreme Court after the Court sided with Trinity Lutheran Church, which objected to being denied public money in Missouri, in Washington​

Three-quarters of the U.S. states have provisions similar to Missouri's barring funding for religious entities. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion saying the court had swept away legal precedents that allow for limits on state funding of churches. Fellow liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented. "This case is about nothing less than the relationship between religious institutions and the civil government - that is between church and state. The court today profoundly changes that relationship by holding for the first time that the Constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church," Sotomayor wrote.

The ruling could help religious organizations nationwide win public dollars at least for certain purposes, such as health and safety. It also could buttress the case for using publicly funded vouchers to send children to religious schools rather than public schools. A challenge to a 2015 court decision invalidating a Colorado voucher program is pending before the justices, awaiting the Trinity Lutheran case's outcome. The court could act on that case as soon as Tuesday. Republican President Donald Trump's education secretary, Betsy DeVos, is a prominent supporter of such "school choice" plans. Roberts, in a footnote in the ruling, said, "This case involves express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing. We do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination."

A police officer stands outside the U.S. Supreme Court building after the Court sided with Trinity Lutheran Church, which objected to being denied public money in Missouri, in Washington​

White House spokesman Sean Spicer called the ruling a "significant victory for religious liberty and an affirmation of the First Amendment rights of all Americans." "This ruling reaffirms that the government cannot discriminate against individuals or organizations simply because they or their members hold religious beliefs," Spicer added. The dispute pitted two provisions of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment against each other: the guarantee of the free exercise of religion and the Establishment Clause, which requires the separation of church and state. The discrimination against religious exercise in this case was Missouri's refusal to allow Trinity Lutheran "solely because it is a church" to compete with secular organizations for a grant, Roberts wrote. Trinity Lutheran, which runs a preschool and daycare center, had wanted a safer surface for its playground.

'COMMONSENSE PRINCIPLE'

 

[waltky]

The Supreme Court is nearing the end of its current term...

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Wedding Cake 'Discrimination' Case
June 26, 2017 | The Supreme Court on Monday finally agreed to hear a case involving a small Colorado bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop, that refused in 2012 to provide a custom wedding cake for a homosexual couple.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that cake baker Jack Phillips engaged in sexual orientation discrimination under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act when he said his sincerely held religious beliefs prevented him from baking a cake for a homosexual couple. The question before the court is: "Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment." Phillips filed his petition for review almost a year ago, but the Justices put off making a decision on whether to hear the case until now. The case will be argued in the fall.

The American Civil Liberties Union represents the couple, Colorado residents David Mullins and Charlie Craig: “The law is squarely on David and Charlie’s side because when businesses are open to the public, they’re supposed to be open to everyone,” said James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s LGBT Project. “While the right to one’s religious beliefs is fundamental, a license to discriminate is not. Same-sex couples like David and Charlie deserve to be treated with the same dignity and respect as anyone else, and we’re ready to take that fight all the way to the Supreme Court.”

Also on Monday, the Justices once again put off a decision on whether to hear a Second Amendment case testing whether law-abiding people have the constitutional right to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense.

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Wedding Cake 'Discrimination' Case

 

[waltky]

Supreme Court reverses ruling sparing killer who forgot the crime...

Supreme Court reverses ruling sparing killer who forgot the crime
November 6, 2017 - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday overturned a lower court ruling that an Alabama man convicted of killing a police officer in 1985 was no longer legally eligible to be executed because strokes wiped out his memory of committing the murder.

The nine justices ruled unanimously that Alabama can execute 67-year-old Vernon Madison, who has spent decades on death row. They said Supreme Court precedent had not established “that a prisoner is incompetent to be executed because of a failure to remember his commission of the crime.” Madison has suffered several strokes in recent years, resulting in dementia and memory impairment, court papers said. He is legally blind, cannot walk on his own and speaks with a slur.

Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, a death penalty critic, wrote in a separate opinion that Madison’s case illustrated “the unconscionably long periods of time that prisoners often spend on death row awaiting execution.” The amount of time condemned inmates spend on death row has increased from seven years in 1987 to more than 19 years in 2017, Breyer said, meaning the justices will face more cases of states trying to execute prisoners suffering diseases of old age. “And we may well have to consider the ways in which lengthy periods of imprisonment between death sentence and execution can deepen the cruelty of the death penalty while at the same time undermining its penological rationale,” Breyer wrote.

Alabama had appealed a March federal appeals court ruling that Madison could not be executed because his memory loss had left him unable to understand the connection between his crime and the punishment he is due to receive. Madison shot Julius Schulte, a police officer in Mobile, twice in the back of the head as Schulte supervised Madison’s move out of his former girlfriend’s house, according to court papers. Madison, who is black, was sentenced to death in 1994 in his third trial after his first two convictions were thrown out on appeal for racial discrimination in jury selection and other prosecutorial misconduct.

After his execution date was set for May 2016, Madison’s attorneys filed a court challenge saying he was not competent to be put to death because he could not remember committing the murder. A state court and a lower federal court denied the request. But the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in a 2-1 ruling that Madison could not be executed, saying the evidence showed he has a serious mental disorder resulting in dementia and believes he did not kill anyone. “A finding that a man with no memory of what he did wrong has a rational understanding of why he is being put to death is patently unreasonable,” that court wrote.

Supreme Court reverses ruling sparing killer who forgot the crime

 

[waltky]

SCOTUS believes States rights have jurisdiction with regards to gun regulations...

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Assault Rifle, Open-Carry Appeals
November 27, 2017 - The U.S. Supreme Court steered clear of the intensifying gun debate after the mass shootings in Nevada and Texas, turning away two appeals from firearms advocates, including one that sought a constitutional right to own a semiautomatic assault rifle.

The justices, without comment Monday, left intact a ruling that upheld Maryland’s ban on assault weapons. In a separate case, the high court refused to require Florida to let handguns be carried openly in public. The Supreme Court has repeatedly rebuffed gun advocates since it ruled in 2010 that people across the country have the right to keep a firearm in the home for self-defense. That case represents the last time the high court heard arguments on the reach of the Second Amendment.

Opponents say easy access to guns is to blame for continued mass shootings in the U.S., including the Oct. 1 massacre of 58 people at a concert in Las Vegas and the slaughter just a month later of 26 people in a Texas church. In the Maryland case, a federal appeals court said assault weapons, including the popular AR-15, aren’t protected by the Second Amendment. The appeals court pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision, which included a line suggesting that states and cities could ban the M-16 rifle, a military version of the AR-15.

‘Weapons of War’

"We have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage," Judge Robert King wrote for the majority. The appeals court voted 10-4 to uphold the ban. Maryland enacted its assault-weapon ban after the 2012 shooting that left 20 children and six educators dead at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. The measure also bans detachable magazines that have a capacity of more than 10 rounds.

A group of residents, gun dealers and associations challenged the restrictions with support from organizations that included the National Rifle Association. "Maryland has banned the most popular semiautomatic rifles and magazines -- arms that are indisputably in common use for self-defense -- from the homes of law-abiding citizens," the appeal argued. The Florida case involved Dale Lee Norman, who was arrested in 2012 while walking on a sidewalk with a handgun in a holster. Florida permits the carrying of licensed handguns outside the home, but the state requires the weapons to be concealed. In urging the court not to hear the appeal, state officials said Florida, South Carolina and Illinois are the only states that allow carrying concealed weapons but bar carrying guns openly. The cases are Kolbe v. Hogan, 17-127, and Norman v. Florida, 17-68.

Here’s Where the GOP Tax Plan Stands Right Now

See also:

A test of just how far the government can go to pry personal data generated by cell phones and other digital devices...

US Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Pivotal Case for Digital Privacy
November 27, 2017 | WASHINGTON — On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case that is widely seen as a test of just how far the government can go to pry personal data generated by cell phones and other digital devices.

The case, known as Carpenter v. United States, pits law enforcement interests against the privacy rights of individuals. At issue is whether law enforcement authorities need a search warrant to obtain historical cell-site records known as cell service location information (CSLI). The data are kept by phone companies to determine roaming charges and weak spots in their networks and show the cell tower a user connects with at any given time. The facts of the Carpenter case are straightforward.

Between 2010 and March 2011, Timothy Carpenter engineered a series of robberies of several cell phone stores in Ohio and Michigan. After Carpenter and his accomplices were arrested, the FBI requested and received several months of Carpenter's cell-site records. Such requests are routinely granted by cell phone companies when law enforcement authorities can show that there are “reasonable grounds” the information is “relevant and material” to criminal investigation. The information showed that Carpenter’s cell phone had connected with cell towers near the stores during the time of the robberies, leading to his conviction on 11 counts of armed robbery.

Carpenter appealed his conviction, arguing that the government had unlawfully obtained his cell phone records without a search warrant. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth District ruled against him. The court argued that that customers who voluntarily turn over their information to third parties such as cell phone companies, banks and other institutions have no “expectation of privacy.” In two previous cases in the 1970s, United States v. Miller and Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court upheld the so-called “third party doctrine.”

But privacy advocates say the third party doctrine is not suitable for the digital age, arguing that increasingly sophisticated cell phones have become repositories of data that the government should not be able to access without probable cause. Andrew Ferguson, a professor of law at the University of the District of Columbia, joined a group of 42 criminal procedure and privacy scholars who filed a brief in support of Carpenter. In an interview with VOA, Ferguson discussed the case and its implications for privacy rights.

What is at issue in Carpenter v. US?

 

[yiostheoy]

SCOTUS believes States rights have jurisdiction with regards to gun regulations...

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Assault Rifle, Open-Carry Appeals
November 27, 2017 - The U.S. Supreme Court steered clear of the intensifying gun debate after the mass shootings in Nevada and Texas, turning away two appeals from firearms advocates, including one that sought a constitutional right to own a semiautomatic assault rifle.

The justices, without comment Monday, left intact a ruling that upheld Maryland’s ban on assault weapons. In a separate case, the high court refused to require Florida to let handguns be carried openly in public. The Supreme Court has repeatedly rebuffed gun advocates since it ruled in 2010 that people across the country have the right to keep a firearm in the home for self-defense. That case represents the last time the high court heard arguments on the reach of the Second Amendment.

Opponents say easy access to guns is to blame for continued mass shootings in the U.S., including the Oct. 1 massacre of 58 people at a concert in Las Vegas and the slaughter just a month later of 26 people in a Texas church. In the Maryland case, a federal appeals court said assault weapons, including the popular AR-15, aren’t protected by the Second Amendment. The appeals court pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision, which included a line suggesting that states and cities could ban the M-16 rifle, a military version of the AR-15.

‘Weapons of War’

"We have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage," Judge Robert King wrote for the majority. The appeals court voted 10-4 to uphold the ban. Maryland enacted its assault-weapon ban after the 2012 shooting that left 20 children and six educators dead at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. The measure also bans detachable magazines that have a capacity of more than 10 rounds.

A group of residents, gun dealers and associations challenged the restrictions with support from organizations that included the National Rifle Association. "Maryland has banned the most popular semiautomatic rifles and magazines -- arms that are indisputably in common use for self-defense -- from the homes of law-abiding citizens," the appeal argued. The Florida case involved Dale Lee Norman, who was arrested in 2012 while walking on a sidewalk with a handgun in a holster. Florida permits the carrying of licensed handguns outside the home, but the state requires the weapons to be concealed. In urging the court not to hear the appeal, state officials said Florida, South Carolina and Illinois are the only states that allow carrying concealed weapons but bar carrying guns openly. The cases are Kolbe v. Hogan, 17-127, and Norman v. Florida, 17-68.

Here’s Where the GOP Tax Plan Stands Right Now

If you read the late Scalia's write-up on Heller, you get the impression that it applies specifically to semi auto pistols, not carbines.

 

[waltky]

Westboro loses protest case...

Supreme Court Leaves in Place Nebraska Funeral Protest Law
27 Nov 2017 | WASHINGTON — Members of the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church challenged the law but have lost in lower courts.

The Supreme Court is leaving in place a Nebraska law that bars protests around funerals. Nebraska enacted the law in 2006. It prohibits protests near a cemetery, mortuary or church from one hour before the beginning of a funeral to two hours after.

Members of the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church challenged the law but have lost in lower courts. Members of the church routinely conduct anti-gay protests outside military funerals. The protests have been a way of drawing attention to their incendiary view that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are God's punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

The Supreme Court said Monday it would not take up the church's challenge to Nebraska's law.

Supreme Court Leaves in Place Nebraska Funeral Protest Law | Military.com