CourtSide - The FindLaw Breaking Legal News Blog

Recently in Supreme Court Category

The Supreme Court today removed an injunction against President Donald Trump's much-maligned travel ban, citing federal immigration law that "exudes deference" to the president and allows him "broad discretion to suspend" the entry of noncitizens into the United States. Despite arguments and federal court rulings that the ban unfairly targeted Muslim immigrants, the Court determined the government demonstrated "a sufficient national security justification" for restricting entry from travelers from Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Chad, and Somalia.

While the case isn't over yet -- it was sent back to the lower courts "for such further proceedings as may be appropriate" -- the Supreme Court's holding contained some forceful language that future challengers will need to overcome. You can read all of the Court's reasoning right here:

Given that carrying and using a cell phone is pretty much a requirement of participation in modern society, and that the amount of data phone companies can collect via the towers our phones are constantly "pinging" for a signal, the location data of our phones can provide quite the window into our daily lives. And if law enforcement wants to peek through that window, they need a warrant according to the Supreme Court.

Today, the Court ruled that police must obtain a warrant to get a phone's location information from cell towers, in certain circumstances. But not every justice agreed with the majority. You can read all the Supreme Court's reasoning right here.

The Supreme Court today ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated Jack Phillips' First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion in the way it dismissed his religious reasoning for denying service to a same-sex couple who requested a cake for their wedding.

While the Court was careful not to rule that wedding vendors and other business owners have a right to refuse service to same-sex couples, it did say the state agency reviewing the case "showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating [Phillips'] objection." Therefore, the finding that Phillips violated Colorado's anti-discrimination laws was invalidated.

You can read the Supreme Court's full opinion, and its reasoning, below.

Sports gambling isn't a federal crime. After all, why can you go to Vegas and place wagers on just about any game you like? But a federal law did allow federal authorities and sports leagues to sue states for "authorizing" sports betting, and block them from doing so.

This small distinction was the statute's undoing, as the Supreme Court repealed the law, leaving it up to the states to legalize or criminalize sports betting. You can read the Court's ruling below:

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: