Top Story
On the last day of the term, the US Supreme Court ruled in two cases on whether the display of the Ten Commandments in a public place is constitutional. The cases argued earlier in the term were from Kentucky and Texas. The result, a split decision.
In the Kentucky case, the court ruled 5-4 that the display of framed copies of the Ten Commandments in two Kentucky courtrooms was unconstitutional. The courts said that those framed copies could be construed as a government endorsement of religion.
In the majority opinion Justice David Souter wrote, "When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality."
The ruling said only "neutral" displays such as historical context are permissible.
In a separate case, the Court rules that a granite display of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the State Capitol in Austin was constitutional. This is similar to a lower court ruling issued last Thursday that said a similar display in a park in Maryland was permissible.
For the moment it seems that this court is ruling that the display of the Ten Commandments and, perhaps, other religious symbols may be constitutional depending on the location and nature of the display.
This is a breaking story with more to come later.
Mixed Rulings on Ten Commandments -- 06/27/2005
Tags: Supreme Court, Ten Commandments
--
Other items
A major Internet industry and the hopes of millions of users were dashed by a Supreme Court decision today.
In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that Internet file-sharing companies could be held liable if they intend their software to be used by consumers to swap songs and movies illegally.
The decision sends the case back to a lower court for trial. The court said that there was enough evidence of unlawful use for the case to go to trial.
"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court.
Court: File-Sharing Services May Be Sued - Yahoo! News
Tags: Supreme Court, Internet, File Sharing
--
In a 7-2 ruling, the US Supreme Court decided police cannot be sued for how they enforce a restraining order.
The court said a Colorado woman did not have a constitutional right to police enforcement of the court order against her husband.
The woman contended police did not do enough to stop her estranged husband from taking their three daughters in violation of a restraining order. The husband was killed in a shootout with police. The bodies of the three young girls were found in his truck.
Cops Can't Be Sued for Restraining Orders - Yahoo! News
Tag: Supreme Court
--
The US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from two journalists for failing to reveal their sources in a high-profile federal case.
Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller were convicted on contempt for failing to reveal their sources in a story about a White House leak that revealed the name of an undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame.
The case will return to the lower court which could sentence the two journalists to prison.
While several states have Shield Laws which allow journalists to refuse to reveal sources in court, there is no such law at the federal level.
US Supreme Court declines journalists' appeal in CIA spy case - Yahoo! News
Tags: Supreme Court, Shield Law
--
From the bench, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist announced the US Supreme Court would be in recess until October 3, 2005. There was no announcement of a retirement.
Speculation is rampant in Washington about the retirement of Rehnquist or Justices Sandra Day O'Connor or Arthur Kennedy.
A retirement announcement could come in a press release or announcement from the White House at a later time.
Tag: Supreme Court
--
More later.
No comments:
Post a Comment