The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in Rumsfeld v. FAIR, a case challenging the Solomon Amendment, a US federal law that allows the government to cut federal funding to universities that refuse to allow military recruiting on campus. FAIR is a coalition of law schools challenging this law on the basis that the US military's policy of prohibiting open homosexuals from serving violates the schools' anti-discrimination policies (see section 6-3). Summing the issue up nicely, the dean of one law school said of the US military, "If it were a private employer who discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, race or gender, we wouldn't allow them here on campus." .rm C-SPAN coverage here.
posted by thirteenkiller on Dec 7, 2005 - 56 comments

SCOTUS rules for seperation of church and state for once. The court's 7-2 ruling held that the state of Washington was within its rights to deny a taxpayer-funded scholarship to a college student who was studying to be a minister. That holding applies even when money is available to students studying anything else. "Training someone to lead a congregation is an essentially religious endeavor," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court majority. "Indeed, majoring in devotional theology is akin to a religious calling as well as an academic pursuit."
posted by skallas on Feb 25, 2004 - 42 comments

A follow up on the debate concerning the Constitutionality of the pledge of allegiance. Apparently the Supreme Court is going to hear it.
posted by sourbrew on Oct 14, 2003 - 26 comments

The Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments about the constitutionality of homosexual sex. While this may not be news, just listening to some of the comments by the conservatives on the court can be a chilling experience, whether you are straight or gay. Is it possible that there can be supreme court justices, supposedly the best of the best, who are really this ignorant?
posted by eas98 on Mar 27, 2003 - 68 comments

National Organization for Women v. Scheidler Is being heard by SCOTUS today. The case may decide whether non-violent civil disobedience can be prosecuted under federal RICO laws. Here's the ACLU's amicus brief. And comments from NRO's Rod Dreher.
posted by Ty Webb on Dec 4, 2002 - 26 comments

On September 17, 1998, in response to an armed robbery call, Houston police burst in to the home of John Lawrence. The police didn’t find a robber (nor would they – the call was deliberately false), but they did find Lawrence having sex with another man, Tyrone Garner. Lawrence and Garner were promptly charged with “engaging in homosexual conduct,” a misdemeanor under Texas law. They paid their fine and began a long legal challenge to Texas’ anti-sodomy law. That challenge has finally reached the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court, which today agreed to hear their appeal early next year. Standing in the way is the Court’s own 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, in which it held that anti-sodomy laws are constitutional. That may be about to change.
posted by pardonyou? on Dec 2, 2002 - 43 comments

Justice O'Connor foresees cutbacks in personal liberties. Sandra Day O'Connor, during remarks given at the groundbreaking ceremonies for a Law School Building at NYU, cautions Americans that we may face restrictions in our personal freedoms. No real specifics in the remarks, but intriguing in that she would be among those having the final say as to the constitutionality of any laws that arise out of the "War on Terrorism". She poses some interesting questions in her remarks. And she is considered to be one of the moderate Justices.
posted by MAYORBOB on Sep 30, 2001 - 13 comments

Granted I don't speed anymore, but handcuffs hurt. Is it just me? But the Supreme court, it seems, cares nothing for the citizenry of this country. Who's hoops are they jumping through, dragging us along with our sore handcuffed wrists?
posted by crasspastor on Apr 24, 2001 - 37 comments

U.S. Supreme Court to review death penalty for retarded. Regardless of what you think of the death penalty for people of normal(?) mental capacity, can you believe that they are just starting to reconsider this now?
posted by jasonshellen on Mar 26, 2001 - 1 comment

Is the Consitution a "living" document? Following "Scary" Scalia's arguments, the Dread Scott decision was a wise and appropriate one, right?
posted by darren on Mar 14, 2001 - 20 comments

Nat Hentoff on the Supreme Court and Bush v Gore: "Far from stealing the election for Bush, the majority of the Supreme Court shamed the politicians of both parties who, for so long, have failed to secure everyone's meaningful right to vote."
posted by aaron on Jan 9, 2001 - 10 comments

Bush, by a technicality. They've run out the clock. Oh dear. This could be messy.
posted by holgate on Dec 12, 2000 - 33 comments

Supreme Court II: Election Boogaloo. Programs, getcher programs here! Thanks to the wonders of the Internet, you can get your grubby hands on the Bush and Gore briefs right now. Fascinating reading. PDF files, of course.
posted by aaron on Dec 10, 2000 - 2 comments

John Scopes, the defendant in the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, was born 100 years ago yesterday, but teaching evolution 76 years later is still considered controversial. Are we ever going to stop having to defend evolution?
posted by mathowie on Aug 4, 2000 - 40 comments

Damn Supreme Court. Just when you thought this was a free country, now they're telling strippers to keep their G-strings on.
posted by veruca on Mar 29, 2000 - 10 comments