On Monday, the Supreme Court issued an important ruling on the subject of surveillance in light of today’s technologies. Its opinion in United States v. Jones makes the rules for surveillance much less clear, which perhaps is not surprising given the rapid technological change and the need for further legislative and judicial action to address these complex new issues. Law enforcement long has used surveillance to track the comings and goings of suspects, probationers, and parolees as well as suspected spies, terrorists, and the like. Surveillance was oftentimes necessary and …
Testifying on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, the National Park Service made clear its legal position for declining to enforce laws against camping on federal land with respect to the Occupy DC protest group. But the Supreme Court has already weighed in on a near-identical case and found that enforcing laws against camping does not violate First Amendment rights, as the NPS claims. “The core of [Occupy DC’s] First Amendment activity is that they occupy the site,” explained NPS director Jonathan Jarvis. In other words, “occupying,” or camping on the land …
Certain Supreme Court cases haunt the American people. When particular issues land on the Court’s docket, some Americans proclaim that, of course, the Court will rule this way because, don’t you know, there is a precedent for that. Free speech, free exercise, the Commerce Clause, and abortion—these are only a few of the issues that cause Americans on the left and the right to hold their breaths and wonder, “Will this be the case where the Court overturns (fill in the blank case). Is Americans’ concern with precedents misplaced? Is …
Today, the Supreme Court tossed out the work of a district court that attempted to force its own electoral maps on the state of Texas, while ignoring the maps drawn by the Texas legislature. The unanimous decision is a major victory for constitutional federalism, and a blow to runaway judicial activism. Drawing electoral districts is one of the core responsibilities of state legislatures, and a vital part of the democratic process, and the federal courts have at least paid lip service to the principle that legislator-passed electoral maps are due significant …
Stories are powerful. They help us relate to other individuals and communicate complex issues. They are an essential ingredient to making policy change in Washington. That’s why we’re asking for your help. The Heritage Foundation is seeking examples of individuals, entrepreneurs and business owners who have been negatively affected by the federal government’s regulatory overreach. We want to spotlight Americans’ experiences with Washington’s red tape. You can help us by filling out the form below. Our goal at Heritage is to reduce government interference and eliminate unwarranted government intrusion into …
An internal memorandum from the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) reveals that Justice Elena Kagan “substantially participated” in a health care case in San Francisco in which the Justice Department argued over the effect of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). This raises grave new doubts about the appropriateness of Kagan’s participation as a justice in the Obamacare lawsuit scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court in March. There has been a lot of debate over Kagan’s direct involvement in defending the PPACA while she was …
Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision that resoundingly affirms the freedom of religious groups to choose their own ministers. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC involved a lawsuit brought by an employee against a church-operated school. The employee alleged that her employment was terminated in violation of a federal anti-discrimination law. The question in this case was “whether the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar such an action when the employer is a religious group and the employee is one of …
Today the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Sackett v. EPA, one of the most important property rights cases to reach the Court in recent history. The case involves a complicated statutory scheme created by the Clean Water Act (CWA), which (as relevant here) is enforced by the EPA. In brief, the CWA seeks to protect the “navigable waters of the United States” against pollution. What makes this case interesting and entertaining (at least for observers) is that the EPA has interpreted the term “navigable waters” to include in …
The Justice Department’s lawsuit against South Carolina has rekindled political war over state voter identification laws. While the merits of the suit will surely be hashed out in the political arena, the Supreme Court has in fact weighed in on the constitutional arguments offered by opponents of voter ID laws, and found them wanting. In light of the issue’s prevalence, it’s worth revisiting that decision to see what the nation’s highest court had to say about voter ID laws. Opponents of those laws usually make a pair of arguments against them: they claim …
Last week the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) requested review by the U.S. Supreme Court in Alpha Delta Chi v. Reed, a case involving two Christian student organizations at San Diego State University. According to ADF, San Diego State University denied official recognition to the two Christian organizations because they require members and/or leaders to agree with the organizations’ religious beliefs. To receive official recognition, student organizations are required to abide by a nondiscrimination policy, which includes a prohibition on religious-based discrimination in selecting members and leaders. But this requirement actually …
