Supreme Court Watch
Court Watch
Court says some Ten Commandments displays OK, some not
FindLaw.com
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that displaying the Ten Commandments on government property is constitutionally permissible in some cases but not in others. A pair of 5-4 decisions left future disputes on the contentious church-state issue to be settled case-by-case. "The court has found no single mechanical formula that can accurately draw the constitutional line in every case," wrote Justice Stephen G. Breyer.
Court: No Ten Commandments in Courthouses
The Associated Press
In a narrowly drawn ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, holding that two exhibits in Kentucky crossed the line between separation of church and state because they promoted a religious message. The 5-4 decision, first of two seeking to mediate the bitter culture war over religion's place in public life, took a case-by-case approach to this vexing issue. In the decision, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property.
Will Ten Commandments stay in 9th Circuit courthouse?
San Francisco Chronicle
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that the Ten Commandments can not be displayed inside two Kentucky courthouses does not resolve a related case involving the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' courthouse here. A California attorney, alleging an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, sued the San Francisco-based circuit in February seeking the removal of a Ten Commandments mural that graces a courtroom wall and a Ten Commandments seal that is at the court's entrance and on its stationery.
Court Adds Death Penalty Case to Next Term
Law.com
The Supreme Court said Tuesday it would consider the appeal of a Tennessee death row inmate who claims that new DNA evidence may vindicate him, in a case that will decide when people should get a fresh chance to prove their innocence. The Court's decision keeps Tennessee from executing Paul House while his case is reviewed and gives hope to other inmates who are seeking new trials.
Court rejects appeal from journalists over CIA leak
USA Today
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday increased the likelihood of jail time for two reporters, refusing to take up a case that pits the news media's promise to protect confidential sources against a grand jury's demand for information. The justices' decision not to intervene leaves reporters Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine in contempt of court for refusing to reveal their sources in a leak probe involving CIA officer Valerie Plame. Each reporter faces up to 18 months in jail.
Sourcing Debate Intensifies As Two Reporters Face Jail Time
USA TODAY
In a major blow to reporters who refuse to reveal their confidential sources, the Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear appeals from Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller, who have balked at testifying before a grand jury investigating the leak of an undercover CIA agent's identity. The court's decision, which the justices made without comment or dissent, was not unexpected; such requests are often denied. In this case, it would have meant revisiting a question the court last dealt with in 1972, when the justices ruled that reporters have no First Amendment right to protect them from being forced to testify to a grand jury.
Court Rules File-Sharing Services Can Be Held Responsible
TechWeb via Yahoo! News
WASHINGTON -- Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if they intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, rejecting warnings that the lawsuits will stunt growth of cool tech gadgets such as the next iPod. The unanimous decision sends the case back to lower court, which had ruled in favor of file-sharing services Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc. on the grounds that the companies couldn't be sued. The justices said there was enough evidence of unlawful intent for the case to go to trial.
Court Term Ends Without Any Justices Announcing Retirement Plans
Daily Herald
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ended its term today with no retirement announcements from any justices. A retirement could come later, however, in a letter to the president or press release. In court, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist struggled to talk and thanked court employees for their work over the past year before he adjourned the term.
Impeachment of Federal Judges
Impeaching Federal Judges: A Covenantal and
Constitutional Response to Judicial Tyranny
The bottom line is this: There is no full answer to the problem of judicial tyranny short of impeachment.
Posted by Editor at June 29, 2005 02:13 PM
