CourtSide - The FindLaw Breaking Legal News Blog

Recently in Supreme Court Category

In a case of saying much without saying a lot, the Supreme Court again compromised on President Donald Trump's travel ban. This time, a one-paragraph order left in place a Hawaii judge's ruling permitting entry of "grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States."

At the same time, the Court granted the administration's request to stay part of the decision that would have made it easier for more refugees to enter the country. The Court's ruling is less than 50 words, but you can read the full decision on which it is based below:

As we have noted before, the right to free speech has its limits. Threats, obscenity, and defamation can all be illegal. But what about disparaging remarks or racial slurs? And what about government sanction of that speech?

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has a disparagement clause, allowing it to deny trademark applications that "may disparage ... persons, living or dead ... or bring them into contempt, or disrepute." But the Supreme Court today ruled the disparagement clause violates the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause, a ruling that could have an enormous impact the limits of free speech in trademark cases.

In its last major decision of the October 2015 term, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Texas law regulating abortion clinics and doctors placed an undue burden on a woman's right to end a pregnancy. The statute required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and also imposed strict regulations on surgical centers, causing about half the state's abortion clinics to shut down.

The Court, still missing a replacement for conservative justice Antonin Scalia, voted 5-3 that the Texas restrictions were unconstitutional. You can read the majority opinion, along with two dissenting opinions, below:

In a victory for affirmative action advocates, the Supreme Court upheld the University of Texas's admissions criteria that takes an applicant's race into account. The case was brought by a white female applicant, Abigail Fisher, who was denied admission to the university in 2008 and claimed that the school's holistic "Personal Achievement Index" (which considered race as a factor in admissions) violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

The Court disagreed, saying schools are permitted "considerable deference" when seeking diversity in their student body. You can see the full opinion below.

The United States Supreme Court ruled that almost $2 billion in assets seized from Bank Markazi, Iran's central bank, can be used to pay victims of terror attacks and their families who won default judgments against the country in civil court. Over 1,300 victims and families of Iran-sponsored acts of terrorism have been seeking compensation since 2008, and they may be one step closer to receiving it.

The ruling could have an enormous impact on U.S.-Iran relations and international law, and you can read it in full below.

The legal relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico has always been a little complicated. And perhaps nowhere has that status been more on display than the issue of same-sex marriage.

On Tuesday, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico ruled that the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that found same-sex couples have the fundamental right to marry does not apply to the island commonwealth. You can see the judge's reasoning in the full opinion below:

Several famous authors filed a brief with the Supreme Court, asking it to hear a lawsuit over Google digital book library. Malcolm Gladwell, Margaret Atwood, Yann Martel, Steven Sondheim and others lent their names to the brief, contending Google is guilty of "massive copyright infringement.

The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether it will hear an appeal from the Second Circuit Court's decision, but you can read the authors' arguments in their filing below:

This morning the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling upholding key subsidy provisions of the Affordable Care Act, known popularly as Obamacare. Had the case gone the other way, millions of Americans who rely on tax credits in order to afford mandatory health insurance could've lost their insurance coverage.

The Court's ruling means that nothing will change in the current health insurance landscape, but that doesn't mean the justices didn't have some interesting things to say. You can read the full majority opinion and dissent below, and decide for yourself who makes the more compelling argument.

In an explanation that may have seemed self-evident, the U.S. Supreme Court has clarified that dumping undersized red grouper overboard in an attempt to deceive fish and game officials is not the same as shredding financial documents to mislead auditors, regulators, and shareholders.

The Court reversed a ruling from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that held the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's prohibition on destruction or concealment of "any record, document, or tangible object" applied to commercial fishermen who threw undersized fish back in the Gulf of Mexico after inspection by National Marine Fisheries officers.

Okla., Neb. Sue Colo. Over Marijuana Law

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?