#Illinois Supreme Court to Decide If State’s Union Contract Conditioned on Appropriations

Supreme Court bans warrantless cell phone searches

by Stephan Dinan - Washington times

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police cannot go snooping through people’s cell phones without a warrant, in a unanimous decision that amounts to a major statement in favor of privacy rights.

Police agencies had argued that searching through the data on cell phones was no different than asking someone to turn out his pockets, but the justices rejected that, saying a cell phone is more fundamental.

---

PHOTOS: 20 gadgets that changed the world

---

The ruling amounts to a 21st century update to legal understanding of privacy rights.

http://goo.gl/gwPJhL

TweetMe Please

Photo famm.org

FINALLY GETTING IT RIGHT ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

By: Charles Krauthammer
4/25/2014 04:57 AM

RESIZE:AAA

Every once in a while a great, conflicted country gets an insoluble problem exactly right. Such is the Supreme Court’s ruling this week on affirmative action. It upheld a Michigan referendum prohibiting the state from discriminating either for or against any citizen on the basis of race.

The Schuette ruling is highly significant for two reasons: its lopsided majority of 6 to 2, including a crucial concurrence from liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, and, even more important, Breyer’s rationale. It couldn’t be simpler. “The Constitution foresees the ballot box, not the courts, as the normal instrument for resolving differences and debates about the merits of these programs.”

http://goo.gl/jjxq1H

TweetMe

Supreme Court Holds Voters Have a Right to Reject Government-Funded Racial Preferences in Public Higher Education

(tweetme)

Scalia, Ginsburg Offer Amendments to the Constitution

Marcia Coyle, Legal Times

April 17, 2014    |0 Comments

Justice Antonin Scalia (March 21, 2014)

Rick Kopstein

In a televised conversation at the National Press Club on Thursday, Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were asked what amendment they would make to the Constitution if given the opportunity. Scalia said he would amend the amendment provision to make amendments easier. Ginsburg said she would add the equal rights amendment.

"I certainly would not want a constitutional convention," Scalia told moderator Marvin Kalb. "Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it?" But, he explained, he once calculated what percentage of the population could prevent an amendment to the Constitution and found it was less than 2 percent. "It ought to be hard, but not that hard," Scalia said.

Read more: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202651605161/Scalia%2C-Ginsburg-Offer-Amendments-to-the-Constitution#ixzz2zFeWvwkl

SUPREMES STRIKE DOWN CAMPAIGN CASH LIMITS

The Supreme Court struck down limits Wednesday in federal law on the overall campaign contributions the biggest individual donors may make to candidates, political parties and political action committees.

The justices said in a 5-4 vote that Americans have a right to give the legal maximum to candidates for Congress and president, as well as to parties and PACs, without worrying that they will violate the law when they bump up against a limit on all contributions, set at $123,200 for 2013 and 2014. That includes a separate $48,600 cap on contributions to candidates.

But their decision does not undermine limits on individual contributions to candidates for president or Congress, now $2,600 an election.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/02/high-court-voids-overall-contribution-limits/

Supreme Court skeptical of computer-based patents

Richard Wolf, USA TODAY12:47 p.m. EDT March 31, 2014

WASHINGTON -- The future of business and software patents hung in the balance Monday inside a Supreme Court chamber packed with lawyers who may be affected by the outcome, but the justices appeared to be seeking a more narrow solution to the proliferation of patents.

While voicing skepticism about the specific patent in question, which uses a computer to safeguard complex financial settlements, the justices repeatedly sought examples of what types of patents would remain legitimate if they impose new limits.

The case, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, poses huge risks for both sides. If the court upholds the patent or rules only narrowly against it without affecting most others, the problem of too many patents -- and patent lawsuits -- will continue. In that case, Justice Stephen Breyer said, future competition could move from price and quality to "who has the best patent lawyer."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/03/31/supreme-court-patent-software-business/7112959/