CourtSide: Supreme Court Archives
CourtSide - The FindLaw Breaking Legal News Blog

Recently in Supreme Court Category

Oklahoma and Nebraska are suing Colorado over its legalization of marijuana, and the U.S. Supreme Court gets to be the first court to hear it.

The complaint filed Thursday claims that under Colorado's new marijuana scheme, the state has created "a dangerous gap in the federal drug control system" and has allowed the drug to flow into neighboring states. According to The New York Times, law enforcement on the borders of Colorado have complained that marijuana arrests are stretching jail budgets too thin.

What is the legal argument against Colorado's law and why is this issue before the Supreme Court?

A federal appeals court has denied Fox's bid to shut down the Dish Anywhere streaming platform. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of TV streaming just three weeks after the Supreme Court shut down Aereo for streaming TV over the internet without permission.

So why did a California federal court give the green light to Dish to continue selling a service so similar to Aereo?

Fox had argued that Dish "engages in virtually identical conduct when it streams Fox's programming to Dish subscribers over the Internet--albeit also in violation of an express contractual prohibition--has repeatedly raised the same defenses as Aereo which have now been rejected by the Supreme Court."

Fox asked the 9th Circuit to impose a preliminary injunction, one that would put a halt to the service.

In a short four-page opinion (attached below), the judges found that Fox's claim that it would be "irreparably harmed" without an immediate block to Hopper was not credible.

Supreme Court Upholds Prayer at Town Meetings

The Supreme Court has upheld the long-standing tradition of offering prayers at the start of government meetings, even if those prayers are heavily Christian.

The Court ruled that the town of Greece, New York was free to open its monthly public meetings with a prayer. Two residents, one Jewish and one atheist, claimed that because the prayers were almost always Christian, the practice amounted to government endorsement of a single faith.

The 5-4 ruling (attached below) was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, with the court's conservatives agreeing and its liberals, led by Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting.

Kennedy wrote that "ceremonial prayer is but a recognition that, since this nation was founded and until the present day, many Americans deem that their own existence must be understood by precepts far beyond that authority of government to alter or define."

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the town's practices could not be reconciled "with the First Amendment's promise that every citizen, irrespective of her religion, owns an equal share of her government."

The Supreme Court last considered the issue of government prayer in 1983, ruling that the Nebraska legislature did not violate the Constitution by opening its sessions with a prayer from a Presbyterian minister.

Aereo Case Will Let Supreme Court Define the Future of TV

The Supreme Court will consider the future of television on Tuesday when it hears arguments about the legality of Aereo, an Internet-television service that uses tiny remote antennas to capture broadcast TV signals and redistributes them online.

If the High Court says Aereo is legal it could usher in a revolution that shapes the way we watch and pay for television.

Aereo's technology is a threat to both the lucrative cable bundles and the networks that receive big-time fees for inclusion in cable packages. Aereo would give so-called cord cutters the means to assemble a more affordable package of online streaming options like Netflix or Apple TV and still watch "NCIS" and the NFL. Consumers pay $8 to $12 a month to watch and record broadcast programs with a few seconds delay.

The legal question before the Justices is whether Aereo is violating broadcasters' copyrights by setting up farms of tiny antennas and then renting access to each one to its subscribers. The technology is a crafty work around that essentially means no cable box and no expensive cable bill.

Broadcasters including ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC and PBS sued Aereo for copyright infringement, saying Aereo should pay for redistributing the programming the same way cable and satellite systems do.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on American Broadcasting Companies v. Aereo Tuesday. Read Aereo's Supreme Court brief here:

Rabbi Loses Supreme Court Case Over Frequent Flyer Miles

The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that an airline customer cannot sue after being thrown out of a frequent flyer program.

The court ruled 9-0 that Rabbi Binyomin Ginsberg cannot pursue his claims against Northwest Airlines, which merged in 2010 with Delta. He sued after he was ousted from Northwest's WorldPerks loyalty program for complaining too often about getting bumped from flights and repeatedly seeking compensation.

The decision (attached below) means airlines have sole discretion to drop frequent flyers.

The court held the federal Airline Deregulation Act barred Ginsberg's lawsuit. The act says states have no say in regulating the price, route or service of an air carrier.

Ginsberg said the airline told him it took action in part because he allegedly sought compensation after booking reservations on full flights, knowing he would be bumped to another flight.

Northwest said he filed 24 complaints and that the contract allowed it to terminate membership for abuse of the program at its sole discretion.

All Same-Sex Spouses Have Employee Benefit Rights: Labor Dept.

Legally married gay couples are entitled to participate in employee benefit plans, even if the state they live in does not recognize gay marriage.

Same-sex spouses can now participate in private retirement and healthcare plans overseen by the department’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), the Department of Labor said in a landmark memo (full-text document attached below).

The terms “spouse” and “marriage” under employee-benefit rules now apply to gay married couples. The move comes after the U.S. Supreme Court’s June decision in United States v. Windsor, which extended federal benefits to those in same-sex marriages.

In effect, a gay couple that is legally married in a state that recognized same-sex marriage will be considered married regardless of where they live.

Labor Secretary Thomas Perez called the ruling a “historic step forward” and said the department would work to implement it in a way providing “maximum protection” for American workers.

The relationship between government and religion will once again become a point of discussion at the U.S. Supreme Court, as the Justices agreed to consider whether a New York town could open meetings with a prayer.

Two residents sued Greece, New York, in 2008, saying it was endorsing Christianity, a violation of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of separation of church and state.

The Supreme Court ruled in a 1983 case, Marsh v. Chambers, that legislative sessions could begin with a prayer in most circumstances, citing the "unique history" of the practice throughout U.S. history.

The 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New York last year unanimously ruled against the city's policy in the attached ruling. Still, other courts around the country have found such invocations -- if inclusive and limited in scope -- to be permissible.

The petition will be argued later this year or early in 2014, with a ruling ready by the spring.

Warrantless DUI Blood Tests Rejected by Supreme Court

Police usually must try to obtain a search warrant before ordering blood tests for drunken-driving suspects, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The justices sided with a Missouri man who was subjected to a blood test without a warrant and found to have nearly twice the legal limit of alcohol in his blood.

The high court struck down Missouri's guidelines giving police broad discretion to forego getting a judge's prior approval before executing a search.

"We hold that in drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the Court.

Did the Supreme Court move too quickly to address whether gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry?

Should the states instead be left to continue the gay marriage experiment for a while?

Those were some of the sentiments expressed by Supreme Court Justices as California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage, was argued before the High Court.

This full oral argument transcript may shed light on where the Justices stand on this issue. Or maybe not. After all, trying to extrapolate where the Justices will ultimately vote is fraught with pitfalls.

For what it’s worth, here are are some of the Justices’ comments (followed by the full transcript after the jump).

“I just wonder if this case was properly granted,” said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

“You want us to step in and assess the effects of this institution, which is newer than cellphones and/or the Internet?” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

“Why is taking a case now the answer?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked.

Justice Kennedy, who likely holds the decisive vote, also voiced sympathy for the children of gay and lesbian couples.

“There’s some 40,000 children in California that live with same-sex parents. They want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important.”

Of course, Justice Kennedy also spoke of uncertainty about allowing same-sex marriage.

“We have five years of information to pose against 2,000 years of history or more.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled that a former grad student who purchased books cheaply overseas can then resell them on eBay for a profit.

The California student, Supap Kirtsaeng, argued he was protected by the first-sale doctrine. The doctrine holds that copyright owners can’t ban resales of their products.

The High Court, in a 6-3 ruling, held the doctrine protects resellers even when the goods are lawfully manufactured outside the United States.