Recently in Civil Rights Law Category

While Justice Antonin Scalia is known as an outspoken conservative, he did not approve of Arizona's law requiring proof of citizenship for voters. The opinion he penned for the U.S. Supreme Court, however, suggests a potential avenue for Arizona to get its way.

In a 7-2 ruling, the Court struck down an Arizona voter-registration provision enacted by voters in 2004, because it is pre-empted by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), a federal law passed in 1993.

The NVRA requires voters to simply check a box on a form, swearing by penalty of perjury that they're citizens of the United States. But Arizona's law went far beyond this.

A 2007 lawsuit challenging the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program will not be revived, as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the suit's dismissal on Monday.

This legal action began years before the recent NSA leaks concerning Verizon phone records and the PRISM project. But it shows just how difficult it may be to stop NSA surveillance via lawsuits.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) has been fighting for nearly seven years to try to have the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), which ended in 2007, labeled as unconstitutional.

Two states have had their early abortion bans blocked in federal court this month, and although Arizona and Arkansas laws are among the first early abortion laws to receive a real federal judicial treatment, they won't be the last.

Many states have been able to push through legislation that complies with Roe v. Wade but still limits abortions, like Texas' pre-abortion ultrasounds. So how did these laws not pass federal muster?

In a surprising ruling on Wednesday, a Texas judge determined that cheerleaders displaying "Bible banners" at high school football games did not violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

The ruling means cheerleaders in Kountze, Texas, can resume making banners with messages like "If God is with us, who can be against us?" after they trounced their school district in court, reports Reuters.

How does this ruling square against the U.S. Supreme Court's long history of separating church and state in schools?

In a blow to freedom of information advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that state public-records access can be limited to residents of that state.

The unanimous decision upheld laws in Virginia and a handful of other states that release some public records only to in-state residents, reports the Los Angeles Times.

At the core of the decision are the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Constitution's privileges and immunities clause.

As we all know, laws are incredibly dynamic. Just a few months ago, we went over the possibility of forced blood draws of DUI suspects and how it's probably a bad idea to refuse a test. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police usually have to get a search warrant before they can order blood tests for drunken-driving suspects.

The vote was 8-to-1, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting by his lonesome.

After the Newtown tragedy, the gun law debate is charged with emotions, and conflict. Tougher gun laws have divided lower courts across the country. And yet, despite all the buzz on the topic, the Supreme Court isn't weighing in on a restrictive gun law in New York state.

If the justices had decided to hear the case, they would've taken on a major Second Amendment question: Can states bar or strictly limit the carrying of guns in public for self defense?

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police may not use drug dogs to sniff outside a suspect's home without a warrant.

In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the use of drug sniffing dogs to investigate a home and its immediate surroundings constituted a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, reports Reuters.

Therefore, police need probable cause and a search warrant to engage in such searches.

Criminal defendants have the right to counsel, even if they can't afford one. That's a staple in the law. And it was solidified even further 50 years ago in the landmark decision Gideon v. Wainwright.

On March 18, 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court held that states must provide a court-appointed attorney for a criminal defendant who's charged with a serious offense, if the defendant lacks the resources to hire his own attorney.

But the post-Gideon road hasn't been an easy one. There are still many problems facing public defenders and the clients they represent. Here are five of the most pressing:

If you do an online search for "Bev Stayart," the search engine may suggest "bev stayart levitra." So the real Bev Stayart filed a lawsuit against Google and other search engines.

She wasn't pleased that her name is associated with a medication for erectile dysfunction. She sued Yahoo! and lost, and then filed a lawsuit against Google, claiming the search engine violated Wisconsin's privacy laws.

She's right that Wisconsin does have a right to privacy law. But did Google violate it when her name popped up in what's known as a "search assist"? Courts don't seem to think so.