Supreme Court might let immigrants (detained after September 11, 2001) sue US Officials

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to decide whether former Attorney General John Ashcroft and other onetime government officials have immunity in suits by immigrants who say they were rounded up and illegally detained after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The court agreed to hear three consolidated cases brought by mostly Muslim immigrants who were in the country illegally. . . .article here (via abajournal.)

Supreme Court potential nomination:

One potential nominee for the post vacated when Scalia passed away: federal appeals Judge Sri Srinivasan.

Srinivasan, a former clerk for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, would be the first Hindu and the first Asian American on the U.S. Supreme Court if he were nominated and confirmed, the Washington Post reports in a story about the Hindu faith. He was born in India and moved with his family to the United States as a child. He was sworn into the federal appeals court on the Bhagavad-Gita, a Hindu holy book.

Article here (via aba journal).

Finite terms for SCOTUS justices would solve problems, says editorial

The Washington Post’s editorial board sees a connection between life tenure for Supreme Court justices and the “dysfunctional politics of judicial nominations.”

In an editorial published on Sunday, the Washington Post says the Constitution relied on life tenure to strike a balance between democratic accountability and judicial independence. But that mechanism is failing, the editorial says.

Article here (via ABA Journal). 

The Dignity of Gay marriages was part of SCOTUS decision: Will that bring about "dignity codes" which are against the First Amendment?

A George Washington University professor says "perhaps."

Article here (via aba journal).

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley says the opinion recognizing the dignity of gay marriage could pave the way for dignity codes that trump free-speech rights.
Turley says “the most direct way” the majority could have upheld a right to gay marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges would be to find that sexual orientation is a protected class under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. That would have made a refusal to issue gay-marriage licenses illegal discrimination, and would have clarified the standard in areas such as employment discrimination and refusal of public accommodations, Turley says.

Just in case: Ottawa County clerk's plan to alter marriage license form if Supreme Court overturns Michigan gay marriage

The Ottawa County clerk will manually update marriage forms to accommodate same-sex couples in the event the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Michigan's gay marriage ban. It's not clear if Kent County's clerk, or some others around the state, will take the same step.

Article here (via mlive). 

The Supreme Court is expected by the end of the month to rule on whether Michigan's 2004 voter-approved gay marriage ban is constitutional.
County clerks say they will comply with the court and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples if the court overturns Michigan's law. But they may not have updated paperwork right away.

Takings clause applies to personal property, US Supreme Court rules

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause requires the government to pay compensation for takings of personal property.

(Blogger's note- Typically, the takings clause is applied to real property (land, mineral rights, etc.) and not personal property. )

The court ruled in the case of raisin producers contesting a government set-aside program. SCOTUSblog calls the decision (PDF) “a major blow to government’s program of trying to boost prices by keeping crops off the market.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion, which was joined in full by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Three other justices agreed that the set-aside program was a taking, but disagreed on valuation.

Article here (via abajournal).

Today's argument at the Supreme Court: Is a warrant necessary for searching cell phones of arrestees?

In case you were wondering, the US Supreme Court will hear oral argument today (article here) about whether a search warrant is required for searching a cell phone of an arrestee.

The storyline goes something like this:  If you are driving a car with expired tags, the police might pull you over.  If they do, they will ask to see your driver’s license.  When you give it to them, they will run a computer check and learn that it has been suspended.  So they decide to impound the car.  But before they tow the car away, they search it.  When they search it, they discover two handguns under the hood, so they arrest you.  When they arrest you, they take your smart phone.  When they take your smart phone, they read your text messages.  When they read the messages, they see texts which suggest that you might be a member of a local gang.  Based in part on those texts, they suspect that you may have been involved in a gang-related shooting a couple of weeks ago, and so they look at your phone again, where they find more evidence to support the theory that you belong to a gang and were involved in the shooting.  

At your trial, you ask the judge to bar the prosecutors from introducing the evidence obtained from your phone.  But the judge rejects that request, ruling that the police could search your phone as part of the process of arresting you – a rule known as a “search incident to arrest.”