U.S. Supreme Court - The FindLaw U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in Civil Rights Law Category

In what seems to be one of those times where the High Court majority would have been better off not saying anything at all, Justice Roberts writing for the majority in Trump v. Hawaii, stated: "Korematsu has nothing to do with this case."

Naturally, given the controversial subject matter of the travel ban case, that statement was not likely to go un-responded to in the media and by legal scholars. And though the mention of Korematsu was borne out of the dissent's criticism of the majority's opinion, as many pundits (and the dissent) point out, Justice Roberts' statements on Korematsu belied conventional logic.

In two highly contested and controversial cases, SCOTUS has ruled 5 to 4 along strict partisan lines, which perhaps explains the delays this term.

In short, the High Court struck down the preliminary injunction issued against the president's Executive Order travel ban. Also, the Court reversed and remanded a decision upholding a California law requiring anti-abortion "crisis pregnancy centers" to not intentionally mislead women about the nature of their services.

Below are highlights on both the Trump v. Hawaii and the NIFLA v. Becerra decisions.

In a detailed 5- 4 opinion, the High Court basically proclaimed the following rule when it comes to law enforcement obtaining an individual's cell phone location data:

Before compelling a wireless carrier to turn over a subscriber's CSLI, the Government's obligation is a familiar one -- get a warrant.

In Carpenter v. U.S., Justice Roberts, for the majority, stressed the fact that individuals have a privacy interest in their cell phone location data, and that absent probable cause and a warrant, or exigent circumstances, it cannot be searched by law enforcement.

To the surprise of many, the challenge to the Minnesota law banning political badges, political buttons, or other political insignia at polling places was successful in the U.S. Supreme Court case Minnesota Voter Alliance v. Mansky.

The High Court held that the law violates the First Amendment rights of voters because, as the law is written, it's just too vague. The 7 to 2 majority opinion explains that the wording of law does not provide individuals, nor those tasked with working the polls, clear definitions as what qualifies as "political." Reading through the opinion, though, it is clear that SCOTUS does see a path whereby such restrictions on apparel could cut Constitutional muster.

Though commentators were just starting to posit that the Azar v. Garza matter was doomed in SCOTUS conference limbo, this week, the Justices issued a unanimous decision. And if you feel like this decision was unexpected, well, you're not alone, as the High Court never heard an oral argument.

The case involved an undocumented teen who needed a court order in order to be allowed to get an abortion. And since the abortion actually happened promptly after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it could, SCOTUS ruled that the case was now moot. As to the sanctions the government sought against the lawyer who they claimed misled the government as to the date of the abortion procedure, SCOTUS was not convinced.

This week, SCOTUS ruled in perhaps the most closely watched case this term, the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. The 7 to 2 ruling came down in favor of the baker who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. But that ruling was rather narrow, seeming to exclusively rest on the state's civil rights commission's hostility toward the baker's claim, rather than constitutional problems with the state's civil rights law.

It appears that the Court has completely avoided the question of whether the baker was in the right or not, instead finding the state civil rights commission was out of order. Naturally, a limited opinion in such a divisive case will likely lead to confusion. And Justice Ginsburg's short dissent, in which Justice Sotomayor joins, is sure to give pause to any readers.

The United States Supreme Court has decided not to intervene in the controversial Arkansas abortion pill case.

In that matter, Planned Parenthood is challenging an Arkansas state law requiring those who provide "medication abortions" to have a contractual relationship with a doctor that has admitting privileges at a local hospital. The challenge claims that the law essentially denies Arkansas residents "medication abortions" as there would be only one other provider left in the state, since Planned Parenthood has not been able to meet the law's requirement. Proponents of law say it's about safety and the state's pro-life politics.

In the latest ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, an 8 to 1 majority opinion held that the Fourth Amendment's vehicle exemption did not apply to a motorcycle, stored under a tarp, on the curtilage of an individual's home.

The basic facts are reminiscent of a deceivingly complex bar exam question. An officer suspected an individual was in possession of a stolen motorcycle that was involved in a couple serious traffic incidents. The officer did some Facebook snooping, and found Ryan Collins who had posted photos of the same motorcycle parked in his driveway.

The officer went to Collins' home and saw a tarp at the top of the driveway next to the home. He then walked up the driveway to the tarp, lifted the tarp up, identified the motorcycle was in fact the one he was looking for, replaced the tarp, then went back to his car to wait for Collins to arrive home. When he did, Collins admitted to buying the bike without title, and the officer arrested him.

Reports from today's oral arguments at the United States Supreme Court explain that the justices kept their poker faces on when it came to partisan gerrymandering. Apart from Justices Sotomayor and Kagan's clearly anti-partisan gerrymandering line of questions, there didn't seem to be any indication of which side was winning.

The Benisek v. Lamone case is a little bit different than the Gil case which was heard last fall. One significant difference that has been getting quite a bit of attention is the fact that this case focuses on a gerrymander in favor of democrats, while Gil's gerrymandering favored republicans. Pundits posit that the High Court took up this case specifically to be able to rule on the issue of partisan gerrymandering without appearing political by letting each faction win (or lose) one case.

In a recent editorial opinion penned for the New York Times, retired United States Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens had a clear message for the youth of today: Repeal the Second Amendment.

Justice Stevens explains that repealing the Second Amendment is now the clearest path to undoing the impact of the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, which he believes was decided incorrectly. Heller effectively invalidated gun control legislation and held that there is an individual right to bear arms within the Second Amendment. Justice Stevens believes the Heller decision "has provided the NRA with a propaganda weapon of immense power."