A unanimous Supreme Court said on Monday that police officers who busted partiers at a vacant District of Columbia house in 2008 were entitled to immunity for placing the participants under arrest.
On December 18, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Katz v. United States, expanding the Fourth Amendment protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures” to cover electronic wiretaps.
Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court changed its mind about what the Fourth Amendment protects, switching its focus from physical places to people. On Wednesday, in a hearing that ran considerably longer than the norm, the Justices explored a new focus for the digital age: the cellphone.
In late November, the Supreme Court will tackle a very modern question about the venerable Fourth Amendment: Does it allow police to see where you’ve been for the past four months by looking at your cellphone data without a warrant?
Arguments at the Supreme Court on Wednesday featured a case about the liability and immunity of police officers who busted some partiers at a vacant District of Columbia house.
America has had its Constitution for more than two centuries, and yet today there are many questions about its meaning that still do not have final answers. A perfect example: What does the word “unreasonable” mean? The Supreme Court agreed this week to try again to give an answer – but there is not the slightest chance that this will end the inquiry.
A federal judge on Wednesday put a temporary halt to key provisions in a proposed Texas state law that would allow for fines and jail time for local officials who didn’t enforce state-mandated immigration-related policies.
On Monday, the Supreme Court erased the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Hernández v. Mesa and asked the court to reconsider in light of its own recent decision.
On June 10, 1968, the Court ruled that a police officer may stop and search a citizen on the street if the officer has "reasonable suspicion" that the citizen is armed or involved in a crime.
It was on this day in 1965 that the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark case about contraception use by married couples that laid the groundwork for a constitutional “right to privacy” in the United States.