Freedom of speech????

In what was labelled an unanimous decision, the Supreme Court struck down Massachusetts law that created a 35 foot wide barrier around reproductive health care clinics, notably Planned Parenthood facilities.  While the result was unanimous, the reasoning was not, leading to multiple opinions.  The case is McCullen v Coakley. 

I have a hard time understanding this case.  Pro-life protesters were not being prevented from presenting their viewpoints, just not in the last 35 feet before the entrance.  The court offered multiple potential alternatives that Massachusetts could create, but I have a hard time with those options.  Protesters can approach people outside the 35 foot zone, can march all they want - but now they can go right up to the front door.  We don't allow people to yell fire in a movie theater, we make it a crime to threaten the President, we allow enhanced punishment for hate speech - there are many limitations put on free speech.  I have a hard time understanding how a 35 foot limit is a problem.  And I am surprised that all nine justices agreed. 

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down Utah's Gay Marriage Ban

In a split 2-1 decision, a three judge panel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a Utah Federal District Court that Utah's ban on gay marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.  While numerous District Courts have found state bans unconstitutional, this appears to be the first Circuit Court of Appeals to agree.  As usual, the New York Times has a good write up about the decision. 

I wonder if the same logic would apply to plural marriages espoused by some Mormon sects.  Bigamy and polygamy are outlawed in all states, but if three people want to get married, how do we look at that?  I don't know the answer, I just ask the question.  Please post a comment with your thoughts.  The full court opinion can be found here.

It is no longer a cell phone!!

In a 9 - 0 decision, the Supreme Court unanimously found that police need a search warrant to search someone's cellphone.  In Riley v California, writing for the full court, Chief Justice Roberts pointed out that cell phone is a misnomer - it can be called many things because it is much more than a portable cellphone; he is quoted by the New York Times

"Even the word 'cellphone' is a misnomer, he said. 'They could just as easily be called cameras, video players, Rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps or newspapers,' he wrote."

For once the entire Supreme Court got it absolutely correct - a cell phone is effectively a mobile computer that has built in video and still cameras, among other things.  Just as the police need a warrant to search a desktop or laptop computer, they need a warrant to search that thing you still call a cellphone. 

For those interested in more detail, you can go to Scotusblog or the full Supreme Court decision.

It's about time

It's about time I started this blog.  I have been teaching Constitutional Law online at Johnson State College for several years.  And I have been teaching the Constitution on the ground at the Winooski campus of the Community College of Vermont for several years as well.

I am going to start with two things that I came across in the June 2014 issue of the ABA journal.  The first has to do with wiretaps.  There was a nice story about how during Prohibition, the Supreme Court ruled that warrantless wiretaps were legal.  In Olmstead v United States, by a 5-4 decision in 1928, Chief Justice Taft said that no warrant was required because the Fourth Amendment only protected "... material things - the person, the house, his papers or his effects."  In dissent, Justice Louis Brandeis argued that the majority ignored the rise of technology.  Many would agree with Justice Brandeis that technology changes now mean we need more changes in interpretation of the Constitution.  Here is one url for the full Olmstead decision: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5577544660194763070&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Olmstead was overturned in 1967 by the Supreme Court's decision in Katz v United States.  Here is one url for the full Katz decision: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/389/347#writing-USSC_CR_0389_0347_ZD

The second issue is the upcoming 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta in 2015.  Here is a quote from the ABA President's Message:

The Magna Carta paved the way for core legal principles such as due process of law, habeas corpus, trial by jury and the right to a speedy trial.  The document presented a template for a higher law that could not be changed by executive mandate or legislative acts.  America's founders embraced the concept of the law of the land in the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.  You can learn more about the Magna Carta and the 800th anniversary by visiting this page: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/leadership/office_of_the_president/magnacarta.html