U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court, 5-4, has upheld legislative prayer in the Town of Greece v. Galloway case, Volokh Conspiracy reports. The majority ruled that opening legislative sessions with Christian prayers doesn't violate the First Amendment's ban on the government establishing religious practices. Here's the opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-696_4f57.pdf

The Washington Post's Robert Barnes writes about the glee that has resulted from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's mistake in his dissent in a case about the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate pollution.

Scalia said the EPA had advocated a cost-conscious approach to setting air quality standards in a 2001 case, but it was the industry that asked the court to consider costs. Scalia's opinion later was updated.

"One of the things that made the overheated takedowns so gleeful was Scalia’s reputation as the court’s most acidic — and funny — writer," Barnes writes.

John Paul Stevens, the retired U.S. Supreme Court justice, testified this week that the United States should adopt a constitutional amendment for campaign finance reform, the Legal Times reports. He wants the amendment to read: "'Neither the First Amendment nor any provision of this Constitution'" would prohibit "'reasonable'" limits on campaign contributions at the federal or state level.

The Senate Rules Committee hearing focused on the Supreme Court's decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission to struck down limits on aggregate campaign contributions.

Several U.S. Supreme Court justices appear to be open to putting limits on police officers searching cellphones, Politico reports. Oral argument were heard in two criminal cases today involving warrantless searches of smartphones: "The arguments in both cases centered around whether cellphones and personal technology have created a fundamentally different world for police, and whether that means that warrants should be required for all searches of electronic devices," Politico further reports.
 

The U.S. Supreme Court, 6-2, has upheld the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to limit interstate pollution, the Washington Post reports. Richard Lazarus, an environmental law professor, told the Post the rule allowing the EPA to regulate pollution sent into downwind states from upwind states is "one of the most significant rules ever" promulgated by the EPA.

The New York Times' Adam Liptak is predicting a split decision in the case of a public employee fired in retaliation for his testimony in a public corruption case. While a majority of justices seemed ready during oral argument to protect Lane, Liptak reports that a ruling might not help him because he might not be able to show that his First Amendment rights were clearly established at the time he was fired. 

The federal government is opposing New York Times reporter James Risen's request for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider his case, which could have profound impact on media law and the amount of protection reporters have for their confidential sources, Politico reports. The Fourth Circuit ordered Risen to testify about his confidential sources in the federal prosecution of an alleged leaker. Risen was subpoenaed regarding his sources for his reportage about a CIA effort to undermine Iran's nuclear program.

The U.S. Supreme Court, 5-4, reversed a $3.4 million restitution award granted against a man who viewed child pornography porn, The New York Times' Adam Liptak reports. The award was granted to a victim whose uncle recording his raping of her. The majority adopted a "vague" standard, Liptak reports, which will require trial courts to only order “reasonable and circumscribed” restitution “in an amount that comports with the defendant’s relative role.”

The U.S. Supreme Court appeared to be concerned about the fate of cloud computing but not so much with the fate of Internet startup Aereo in oral arguments today, Re/code reports: "As attorneys for the Web TV service and the TV networks who are suing it argued their case today, justices repeatedly asked about ways they could write a judgment that protected the rights of other cloud computing services, such as Dropbox, to continue operating. But they seemed less concerned about Aereo’s fate. Some justices wondered why Aereo shouldn’t be considered the equivalent of cable company, which would give them the right to transmit TV programming — but would also require them to pay for it. And others argued that Aereo seemed primarily designed to evade copyright law."

Aereo retransmits free broadcast TV over the Internet through individual antennas dedicated to each customer. Aereo says it designed its system with those one-to-one antennas to avoid violating broadcasters' exclusive rights to publicly perform their works. But broadcasters say Aereo is freeloading on their content without having to pay retransmission fees. 

With Internet start-up Aereo and broadcast TV companies slated to go to the U.S. Supreme Court today, the case "could have important implications for Internet streaming, cloud computing, and the future of the TV industry itself," Time reports. Aereo retransmits free broadcast TV over the Internet through individual antennas dedicated to each customer. Aereo says it designed its system with those one-to-one antennas to avoid violating broadcasters' exclusive rights to publicly perform their works. But broadcasters say Aereo is freeloading on their content without having to pay retransmission fees.