The U.S. Supreme Court has endorsed open-ended recovery of damages for copyright infringement, ruling that music producer Sherman Nealy can pursue over a decade’s worth of damages for an unlicensed sample of his work by Flo Rida in his 2008 tune “In the Ayer.”
The finding, in a 6-3 ruling issued on Thursday, could expand the scope of damages in cases in which plaintiffs were previously barred from recovering money for infringement that occurred more than three years before the filing of a lawsuit. In some cases, claimants could potentially get a bigger payout by waiting to sue and letting damages stack rather than trying to stop the alleged infringement as long as they bring a lawsuit within the statute of limitations.
“There is no time limit on monetary recovery,” wrote justice Elena Kagan in the majority opinion. “So a copyright owner possessing a timely claim for infringement is entitled to damages,...
The finding, in a 6-3 ruling issued on Thursday, could expand the scope of damages in cases in which plaintiffs were previously barred from recovering money for infringement that occurred more than three years before the filing of a lawsuit. In some cases, claimants could potentially get a bigger payout by waiting to sue and letting damages stack rather than trying to stop the alleged infringement as long as they bring a lawsuit within the statute of limitations.
“There is no time limit on monetary recovery,” wrote justice Elena Kagan in the majority opinion. “So a copyright owner possessing a timely claim for infringement is entitled to damages,...
- 5/9/2024
- by Winston Cho
- The Hollywood Reporter - Movie News
Supreme Court oral arguments were made for social media. Social media was not made to make Supreme Court arguments persuasive or even understandable.
The court’s latest Donald Trump case is a perfect illustration. The justices on this court are relatively young. Their questions are clear and direct, and they all are engaged, respectful, and fair. If you listen from start to finish, you can’t help but think this is the most deliberate and serious branch of the three-ring circus that is Washington, D.C.
Yet clips from any argument,...
The court’s latest Donald Trump case is a perfect illustration. The justices on this court are relatively young. Their questions are clear and direct, and they all are engaged, respectful, and fair. If you listen from start to finish, you can’t help but think this is the most deliberate and serious branch of the three-ring circus that is Washington, D.C.
Yet clips from any argument,...
- 5/1/2024
- by Lawrence Lessig
- Rollingstone.com
The Supreme Court, amid an unprecedented crisis of legitimacy pertaining to unreported gifts to justices, debated on Monday whether a contractor making a $13,000 gratuity to a politician is similar to taking a teacher to Cheesecake Factory.
In 2012, James Synder was elected mayor of the Northwest Indiana town of just under 38,000 people. Synder, who was struggling to keep his own business afloat and was behind on taxes, oversaw the bidding process for a contract to buy new garbage trucks for the town. The contract, which was worth over $1.1 million, went to a local company,...
In 2012, James Synder was elected mayor of the Northwest Indiana town of just under 38,000 people. Synder, who was struggling to keep his own business afloat and was behind on taxes, oversaw the bidding process for a contract to buy new garbage trucks for the town. The contract, which was worth over $1.1 million, went to a local company,...
- 4/16/2024
- by Charisma Madarang
- Rollingstone.com
On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that states could not remove Donald Trump from their ballots using the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause.
However, the Supreme Court justices were divided about how broadly this decision would end up sweeping. A five-to-four majority wrote that no state could exclude a federal candidate from any ballot – but four justices argued that the court should have kept its opinion limited.
A five-justice majority – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – wrote that states cannot remove any federal officer from the ballot, especially the president, unless Congress first passes legislation.
“We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency,” these justices said.
“Nothing in the Constitution delegates to the States any...
However, the Supreme Court justices were divided about how broadly this decision would end up sweeping. A five-to-four majority wrote that no state could exclude a federal candidate from any ballot – but four justices argued that the court should have kept its opinion limited.
A five-justice majority – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – wrote that states cannot remove any federal officer from the ballot, especially the president, unless Congress first passes legislation.
“We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency,” these justices said.
“Nothing in the Constitution delegates to the States any...
- 3/6/2024
- by Alessio Atria
- Uinterview
Authorities In Idaho halted the lethal injection of the serial killer Thomas Eugene Creech after a medical team failed eight times trying to insert an IV into him.
According to the Ada County Prosecutor’s Office, Creech has been incarcerated since 1974 for murdering three people in Idaho, one in California and another in Oregon. He was sentenced to death for murdering fellow inmate David Dale Jenson in 1981.
Josh Tewalt, the director of the Idaho Department of Correction, stated that, on February 28, the convicted serial killer had been brought into the execution chamber and strapped down.
“The team attempted eight times, through multiple limbs and appendages, to establish IV access,” Tewalt said during a news conference.
Witnesses noted that the medical team first tried Creech’s right arm, then his right hand before moving on to his left arm, and then to his left leg. However, those attempts ended up being...
According to the Ada County Prosecutor’s Office, Creech has been incarcerated since 1974 for murdering three people in Idaho, one in California and another in Oregon. He was sentenced to death for murdering fellow inmate David Dale Jenson in 1981.
Josh Tewalt, the director of the Idaho Department of Correction, stated that, on February 28, the convicted serial killer had been brought into the execution chamber and strapped down.
“The team attempted eight times, through multiple limbs and appendages, to establish IV access,” Tewalt said during a news conference.
Witnesses noted that the medical team first tried Creech’s right arm, then his right hand before moving on to his left arm, and then to his left leg. However, those attempts ended up being...
- 3/5/2024
- by Alessio Atria
- Uinterview
The Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot unilaterally implement the Constitution’s 14th Amendment anti-rebellion clause to bar individuals from appearing on state ballots. The decision benefits one person specifically this election cycle: Donald Trump.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court overturned a ruling by Colorado’s Supreme Court authorizing Trump’s removal from the state’s 2024 primary election ballot on grounds that the former president had committed acts of rebellion and insurrection in the aftermath of his 2020 election loss and through his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court overturned a ruling by Colorado’s Supreme Court authorizing Trump’s removal from the state’s 2024 primary election ballot on grounds that the former president had committed acts of rebellion and insurrection in the aftermath of his 2020 election loss and through his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
- 3/4/2024
- by Nikki McCann Ramirez
- Rollingstone.com
Donald Trump cannot be removed from state ballots in the 2024 election, despite a clause in the Constitution that restricts those who have engaged in an insurrection from holding office, the Supreme Court ruled today.
In a 9-0 decision, the justices ruled that it was up to Congress, and not the states, to make such a determination.
Read the Supreme Court opinion on Trump ballot access.
The decision had been expected, after justices were skeptical of a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that removed the former president from the ballot. Other states, however, had reached alternate conclusions that kept Trump on their ballots.
Some legal scholars had held that Trump could be removed from the ballot following his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and his conduct on January 6, 2021, when he urged his supporters to march to the Capitol. There, rioters stormed House and Senate chambers as lawmakers were...
In a 9-0 decision, the justices ruled that it was up to Congress, and not the states, to make such a determination.
Read the Supreme Court opinion on Trump ballot access.
The decision had been expected, after justices were skeptical of a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that removed the former president from the ballot. Other states, however, had reached alternate conclusions that kept Trump on their ballots.
Some legal scholars had held that Trump could be removed from the ballot following his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and his conduct on January 6, 2021, when he urged his supporters to march to the Capitol. There, rioters stormed House and Senate chambers as lawmakers were...
- 3/4/2024
- by Ted Johnson
- Deadline Film + TV
Update: Donald Trump said that he “thought that our arguments” were very strong before the Supreme Court, as he held a press conference shortly after oral arguments ended.
He called it a “beautiful process,” clearly pleased with legal analysts’ predictions that the justices were likely to rule in his favor on the question of whether Colorado could exclude him from the state ballot.
The major cable news networks carried the speech, but CNN and MSNBC broke away as he veered into campaign rhetoric.
“I am leaving it up to the Supreme Court,” Trump said.
Previously: As the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether Donald Trump can be kept off the state ballot, there were signs that the justices have skepticism about such a move.
Justice Elena Kagan told Jason Murray, attorney for the group of voters challenging Trump’s eligibility, “Most boldly, I think the question you have to confront...
He called it a “beautiful process,” clearly pleased with legal analysts’ predictions that the justices were likely to rule in his favor on the question of whether Colorado could exclude him from the state ballot.
The major cable news networks carried the speech, but CNN and MSNBC broke away as he veered into campaign rhetoric.
“I am leaving it up to the Supreme Court,” Trump said.
Previously: As the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether Donald Trump can be kept off the state ballot, there were signs that the justices have skepticism about such a move.
Justice Elena Kagan told Jason Murray, attorney for the group of voters challenging Trump’s eligibility, “Most boldly, I think the question you have to confront...
- 2/8/2024
- by Ted Johnson
- Deadline Film + TV
Michael Imperioli blastd the Supreme Court’s decision to side in favor of a Christian web designer’s right to refuse to create websites that celebrate same-sex weddings.
Imperioli took his opinion onto Instagram stating, “I’ve decided to forbid bigots and homophobes from watching The Sopranos, The White Lotus, Goodfellas or any movie or tv show I’ve been in. Thank you Supreme Court for allowing me to discriminate and exclude those who I don’t agree with and am opposed to. USA! USA!”
He additionally included a picture of a headline that reads, “Supreme Court protects web designer who won’t do gay wedding websites.”
Fans had mixed reactions to his post. One said, “It’s her beliefs, bet you wouldn’t challenge a Muslim on their beliefs and take on homosexuality would you.”
Others agreed with his opinion, commenting, “Preach @realmichaelimperioli Thanks for this. Totally agree with this.
Imperioli took his opinion onto Instagram stating, “I’ve decided to forbid bigots and homophobes from watching The Sopranos, The White Lotus, Goodfellas or any movie or tv show I’ve been in. Thank you Supreme Court for allowing me to discriminate and exclude those who I don’t agree with and am opposed to. USA! USA!”
He additionally included a picture of a headline that reads, “Supreme Court protects web designer who won’t do gay wedding websites.”
Fans had mixed reactions to his post. One said, “It’s her beliefs, bet you wouldn’t challenge a Muslim on their beliefs and take on homosexuality would you.”
Others agreed with his opinion, commenting, “Preach @realmichaelimperioli Thanks for this. Totally agree with this.
- 7/7/2023
- by Nina Hauswirth
- Uinterview
Michael Imperioli took to social media to share a statement following the Supreme Court decision to side with a Colorado web designer who does not want to create wedding sites for same-sex couples due to religious reasons.
“I’ve decided to forbid bigots and homophobes from watching The Sopranos, The White Lotus, Goodfellas or any movie or tv show I’ve been in,” the actor wrote in an Instagram caption of a photo of a news story announcing the court’s decision.
He continued, “Thank you Supreme Court for allowing me to discriminate and exclude those who I don’t agree with and am opposed to. USA ! USA!” Imperioli also commented on his post, writing, “hate and ignorance is not a legitimate point of view,” and “America is becoming dumber by the minute.”
The court ruled 6-3 in favor of designer Lorie Smith, explaining that she can refuse to design...
“I’ve decided to forbid bigots and homophobes from watching The Sopranos, The White Lotus, Goodfellas or any movie or tv show I’ve been in,” the actor wrote in an Instagram caption of a photo of a news story announcing the court’s decision.
He continued, “Thank you Supreme Court for allowing me to discriminate and exclude those who I don’t agree with and am opposed to. USA ! USA!” Imperioli also commented on his post, writing, “hate and ignorance is not a legitimate point of view,” and “America is becoming dumber by the minute.”
The court ruled 6-3 in favor of designer Lorie Smith, explaining that she can refuse to design...
- 7/2/2023
- by Christy Piña
- The Hollywood Reporter - Movie News
Reacting to the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruling that affirmative action in higher education and President Joe Biden’s student debt relief plan are unconstitutional, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-ny) warned Sunday that the court is “beginning to assume the power of a legislature.”
“They are expanding their role into acting as though they are Congress itself and that, I believe, is an expansion of power that we really must be focusing on,” Ocasio-Cortez said on CNN’s State of the Union.
In striking down affirmative action in helping determine admissions decisions,...
“They are expanding their role into acting as though they are Congress itself and that, I believe, is an expansion of power that we really must be focusing on,” Ocasio-Cortez said on CNN’s State of the Union.
In striking down affirmative action in helping determine admissions decisions,...
- 7/2/2023
- by William Vaillancourt
- Rollingstone.com
The Supreme Court ended its latest term in devastating fashion, ruling that businesses can discriminate against gay Americans before striking down President Biden’s plan for relieve student debt relief for an estimated 43 million Americans. The rulings came a day after the conservative court deemed race-base affirmative action in college admissions unconstitutional.
The court’s three liberal justices — Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — delivered scathing dissenting opinions, calling out their “let them eat cake” colleagues for taking a hatchet to the longstanding measures to protect and uplift marginalized Americans.
The court’s three liberal justices — Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — delivered scathing dissenting opinions, calling out their “let them eat cake” colleagues for taking a hatchet to the longstanding measures to protect and uplift marginalized Americans.
- 6/30/2023
- by Ryan Bort
- Rollingstone.com
The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that President Joe Biden’s student debt relief is unconstitutional, and that the 43 million Americans who stood to see some much-needed financial relief — and the 20 million who would have had their debt wiped out completely — are back to being shit out of luck.
The court invalidated Biden’s program — re-saddling millions with thousands of dollars in debt they didn’t have yesterday — with a 6-3 vote, along ideological lines. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissenting opinion. “The result here is that the Court substitutes...
The court invalidated Biden’s program — re-saddling millions with thousands of dollars in debt they didn’t have yesterday — with a 6-3 vote, along ideological lines. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissenting opinion. “The result here is that the Court substitutes...
- 6/30/2023
- by Ryan Bort
- Rollingstone.com
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down affirmative action in college admissions, forcing institutions of higher education to look for new ways to achieve diverse student bodies.
The court’s conservative majority overturned admissions plans at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the nation’s oldest private and public colleges, respectively.
Chief Justice John Roberts said that for too long universities have “concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, the nation’s second Black justice who had long called for an end to affirmative action, wrote separately that the decision “sees the universities’ admissions policies for what they are: rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in their entering classes.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent that...
The court’s conservative majority overturned admissions plans at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the nation’s oldest private and public colleges, respectively.
Chief Justice John Roberts said that for too long universities have “concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, the nation’s second Black justice who had long called for an end to affirmative action, wrote separately that the decision “sees the universities’ admissions policies for what they are: rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in their entering classes.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent that...
- 6/29/2023
- by The Associated Press
- The Hollywood Reporter - Movie News
The U.S. Supreme Court, hearing a case that could reshape the internet, considered on Tuesday whether Google bears liability for user-generated content when its algorithms recommend videos to users.
In the case, Gonzalez vs, Google, the family of a terrorist attack victim contends that YouTube violated the federal Anti-Terrorism Act because its algorithm recommended Isis videos to users, helping to spread their message. Nohemi Gonzalez was an American student killed in a 2015 Isis attack in Paris, and his family’s lawsuit challenges the broad legal immunity that tech platforms enjoy for third party content posted on their sites.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, protects platforms from legal action over user-generated content, and it also protects them if they choose to remove content. Section 230 has withstood court challenges for the past three decades even as the internet exploded.
The attorney for Gonzalez’s family claimed that YouTube...
In the case, Gonzalez vs, Google, the family of a terrorist attack victim contends that YouTube violated the federal Anti-Terrorism Act because its algorithm recommended Isis videos to users, helping to spread their message. Nohemi Gonzalez was an American student killed in a 2015 Isis attack in Paris, and his family’s lawsuit challenges the broad legal immunity that tech platforms enjoy for third party content posted on their sites.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, protects platforms from legal action over user-generated content, and it also protects them if they choose to remove content. Section 230 has withstood court challenges for the past three decades even as the internet exploded.
The attorney for Gonzalez’s family claimed that YouTube...
- 2/21/2023
- by Jill Goldsmith
- Deadline Film + TV
The fate of the social media industry is in the hands of the Supreme Court. The highest court in the land has heard oral arguments for Gonzalez v. Google, a case that concerns Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
Section 230 is the controversial piece of legislation that provides platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter with “safe harbor” status. The 27-year-old rule shields tech companies from being legally liable for any content posted on their platforms by third parties — so long as the companies react to moderation demands in a timely manner.
There have been many challenges to Section 230’s authority over the years, and Gonzalez v. Google is the latest attempt to rewrite the law. The case centers around Nohemi Gonzalez (pictured above), who was one of the 130 people killed in the November 2015 Paris attacks perpetrated by Isis.
The prosecution is arguing that the YouTube algorithm aided and abetted...
Section 230 is the controversial piece of legislation that provides platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter with “safe harbor” status. The 27-year-old rule shields tech companies from being legally liable for any content posted on their platforms by third parties — so long as the companies react to moderation demands in a timely manner.
There have been many challenges to Section 230’s authority over the years, and Gonzalez v. Google is the latest attempt to rewrite the law. The case centers around Nohemi Gonzalez (pictured above), who was one of the 130 people killed in the November 2015 Paris attacks perpetrated by Isis.
The prosecution is arguing that the YouTube algorithm aided and abetted...
- 2/21/2023
- by Sam Gutelle
- Tubefilter.com
Whoopi Goldberg had some pointed words for Justice Samuel Alito during Tuesday’s episode of “The View,” questioning why he’s still sitting on the Supreme Court, after making a quip in a recent case about a hypothetical scenario in which a Black man playing Santa Claus had to encounter a child wearing a Ku Klux Klan uniform.
The topic came as the women were discussing the case of a graphic designer in Colorado, who has revealed that she plans to refuse to work on same-sex weddings — no one has asked her to yet — because she feels it violates her religious and artistic freedom. The case is currently being tried before the Supreme Court, with arguments beginning on Monday.
For the most part, Whoopi disagreed with the woman’s stance, saying that she doesn’t have to believe in gay marriage personally, but she shouldn’t get the right to refuse others because of it.
The topic came as the women were discussing the case of a graphic designer in Colorado, who has revealed that she plans to refuse to work on same-sex weddings — no one has asked her to yet — because she feels it violates her religious and artistic freedom. The case is currently being tried before the Supreme Court, with arguments beginning on Monday.
For the most part, Whoopi disagreed with the woman’s stance, saying that she doesn’t have to believe in gay marriage personally, but she shouldn’t get the right to refuse others because of it.
- 12/6/2022
- by Andi Ortiz
- The Wrap
American laws designed to prevent censorship on social media have suffered numerous defeats in court. On September 16, however, the most notable of those laws picked up an important win. A U.S. Circuit Court has ruled in favor of Hb 20, which aims to prevent platforms like YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook from taking any action that would “discriminate against expression.”
Texas Governor Greg Abbott worked with the state’s Attorney General, Ken Paxton, to pass Hb 20 last year. The courts have played ping-pong with the edict’s legal status since then. Hb 20 was initially prevented from taking effect via an injunction, but a federal appeals court reversed that decision this past May. In response, a coalition representing several major tech companies rushed the law to the Supreme Court, where a 5-4 majority voted to reinstate the injunction.
Now, two judge on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals have declared that Hb 20 is “constitutionally allowed.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott worked with the state’s Attorney General, Ken Paxton, to pass Hb 20 last year. The courts have played ping-pong with the edict’s legal status since then. Hb 20 was initially prevented from taking effect via an injunction, but a federal appeals court reversed that decision this past May. In response, a coalition representing several major tech companies rushed the law to the Supreme Court, where a 5-4 majority voted to reinstate the injunction.
Now, two judge on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals have declared that Hb 20 is “constitutionally allowed.
- 9/19/2022
- by Sam Gutelle
- Tubefilter.com
The Supreme Court blocked a Texas law that prohibited major social media platforms including Facebook and YouTube from restricting content based on viewpoint.
The law was championed by the Gov. Greg Abbott, as a response to alleged bias by major platforms against conservatives.
But in a 5-4 decision (read it here), the justices have put at least a temporary hold on the law until appeals are pursued and courts can examine the case on the merits. Justice Elena Kagan joined conservatives Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch in dissent.
Chris Marchese, counsel at NetChoice, which brought the case on behalf of social media platforms, said in a statement: “Texas’s Hb 20 is a constitutional trainwreck — or, as the district court put it, an example of ‘burning the house to roast the pig.’ We are relieved that the First Amendment, open internet, and the users who rely on it remain...
The law was championed by the Gov. Greg Abbott, as a response to alleged bias by major platforms against conservatives.
But in a 5-4 decision (read it here), the justices have put at least a temporary hold on the law until appeals are pursued and courts can examine the case on the merits. Justice Elena Kagan joined conservatives Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch in dissent.
Chris Marchese, counsel at NetChoice, which brought the case on behalf of social media platforms, said in a statement: “Texas’s Hb 20 is a constitutional trainwreck — or, as the district court put it, an example of ‘burning the house to roast the pig.’ We are relieved that the First Amendment, open internet, and the users who rely on it remain...
- 5/31/2022
- by Ted Johnson
- Deadline Film + TV
The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a federal cap on politicians using campaign funds to reimburse themselves for personal loans made to their own campaigns. The ruling is obviously a win for rich candidates, and means that similarly rich donors and lobbyists will essentially be able to bribe politicians with donations candidates can then pocket.
The 6-3 decision authored by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and dissented to by the court’s liberal wing was the result of a lawsuit from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) challenging the Bipartisan Campaign...
The 6-3 decision authored by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and dissented to by the court’s liberal wing was the result of a lawsuit from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) challenging the Bipartisan Campaign...
- 5/16/2022
- by William Vaillancourt
- Rollingstone.com
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court gave the go-ahead for a business-friendly and anti-environment Trump-era regulation. That this conservative Supreme Court ruled in this way is par for the course. But what was somewhat unusual about the ruling was that the court used what is called its “shadow docket” to do so. This secretive, irregular, and unreasoned ruling from the Supreme Court has unfortunately become more common in the past few years.
To understand the “shadow docket” and what is so problematic about the Supreme Court’s use of it,...
To understand the “shadow docket” and what is so problematic about the Supreme Court’s use of it,...
- 4/10/2022
- by David S. Cohen
- Rollingstone.com
Federal judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed Thursday as the next U.S. Supreme Court justice following contentious Senate hearings that revolved around political flashpoints.
Jackson, 51, becomes the first Black woman to earn a seat on the nation’s highest court after the 53-47 confirmation vote in the Senate that mostly fell along partisan lines.
Three Republicans broke ranks to affirm the confirmation of the jurist who was appointed to several as a federal judge for the Washington, D.C. circuit in 2012 by President Barack Obama. Last year, President Joe Biden appointed her to the court of appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The fact that Jackson had been confirmed twice by the Senate in the past decade added to the sense of political grandstanding around the hearings earlier this week. Several Republican senators grilled Jackson about her past rulings on crimes involving child pornography, with nods to outrageous tropes...
Jackson, 51, becomes the first Black woman to earn a seat on the nation’s highest court after the 53-47 confirmation vote in the Senate that mostly fell along partisan lines.
Three Republicans broke ranks to affirm the confirmation of the jurist who was appointed to several as a federal judge for the Washington, D.C. circuit in 2012 by President Barack Obama. Last year, President Joe Biden appointed her to the court of appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The fact that Jackson had been confirmed twice by the Senate in the past decade added to the sense of political grandstanding around the hearings earlier this week. Several Republican senators grilled Jackson about her past rulings on crimes involving child pornography, with nods to outrageous tropes...
- 4/7/2022
- by William Earl
- Variety Film + TV
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) on Wednesday became the first Republican to express her support for Ketanji Brown Jackson, all but assuring she will be confirmed as the first Black woman to sit on the Supreme Court.
It took a second meeting with Jackson on Tuesday afternoon for Collins to feel comfortable that the federal judge and former public defender would not be “bending the law to meet a personal preference,” as Collins told The New York Times in an interview.
“In recent years, senators on both sides of the...
It took a second meeting with Jackson on Tuesday afternoon for Collins to feel comfortable that the federal judge and former public defender would not be “bending the law to meet a personal preference,” as Collins told The New York Times in an interview.
“In recent years, senators on both sides of the...
- 3/30/2022
- by William Vaillancourt
- Rollingstone.com
Joe Biden’s administration was dealt a setback in its effort to curb Covid, as the Supreme Court blocked a mandate that larger businesses require employees be vaccinated or submit to regular testing.
The high court did uphold a requirement that health care firms that receive federal money comply with a vaccine mandate for their employees.
The 6-3 ruling is not a surprise, as justices had indicated their misgivings about the mandate in oral arguments last Friday.
Biden has cited vaccine requirements at The Walt Disney Co., Netflix and Fox Corp. in arguing for the government mandate. The Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration drew up the rules and was the implement and enforce it. It would have applied to businesses with 100 or more employees, and also would have required that unvaccinated employees wear masks in the workplace. An estimated 84 million employees were covered by the regulation.
The high court did uphold a requirement that health care firms that receive federal money comply with a vaccine mandate for their employees.
The 6-3 ruling is not a surprise, as justices had indicated their misgivings about the mandate in oral arguments last Friday.
Biden has cited vaccine requirements at The Walt Disney Co., Netflix and Fox Corp. in arguing for the government mandate. The Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration drew up the rules and was the implement and enforce it. It would have applied to businesses with 100 or more employees, and also would have required that unvaccinated employees wear masks in the workplace. An estimated 84 million employees were covered by the regulation.
- 1/13/2022
- by Ted Johnson
- Deadline Film + TV
The Supreme Court has rejected the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, keeping in place the 11-year-old healthcare law that has expanded insurance coverage to millions.
The justices ruled that those seeking to strike down the law’s individual mandate did not have standing to do so.
The court voted 7-2 against the challenge (read the opinion here). The justices did not get into the merits of the case, but ruled that the plaintiffs “failed to show a concrete, particularized injury fairly traceable to the defendants’ conduct in enforcing the specific statutory provision they attack as unconstitutional.” In other words, the plaintiffs had to show how they were directly injured, not merely that the language of the law was unenforceable.
This was the third time that the law has survived a Supreme Court challenge since its passage in 2010.
Since then, Obamacare has gained in popularity. But Republican state officials and two individuals,...
The justices ruled that those seeking to strike down the law’s individual mandate did not have standing to do so.
The court voted 7-2 against the challenge (read the opinion here). The justices did not get into the merits of the case, but ruled that the plaintiffs “failed to show a concrete, particularized injury fairly traceable to the defendants’ conduct in enforcing the specific statutory provision they attack as unconstitutional.” In other words, the plaintiffs had to show how they were directly injured, not merely that the language of the law was unenforceable.
This was the third time that the law has survived a Supreme Court challenge since its passage in 2010.
Since then, Obamacare has gained in popularity. But Republican state officials and two individuals,...
- 6/17/2021
- by Ted Johnson
- Deadline Film + TV
The Supreme Court on Tuesday waded into a two-decade long debate over the extent to which the FCC can relax media ownership rules.
At stake are recent FCC moves toward deregulation, allowing the common ownership of a newspaper and broadcast stations in the same market, as well as giving more leeway for media companies to own more than one TV and radio outlet in the same city.
The dispute stretches back two decades, a few years after the FCC began a new, congressionally mandated requirement to regularly review its media ownership rules determine whether they were still necessary in the public interest.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly rejected the FCC’s efforts to modify the rules, and most recently a 2017 effort to overhaul the ownership restrictions. The appeals court determined that that effort failed to adequate analyze the effect that the rule changes would have on women...
At stake are recent FCC moves toward deregulation, allowing the common ownership of a newspaper and broadcast stations in the same market, as well as giving more leeway for media companies to own more than one TV and radio outlet in the same city.
The dispute stretches back two decades, a few years after the FCC began a new, congressionally mandated requirement to regularly review its media ownership rules determine whether they were still necessary in the public interest.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly rejected the FCC’s efforts to modify the rules, and most recently a 2017 effort to overhaul the ownership restrictions. The appeals court determined that that effort failed to adequate analyze the effect that the rule changes would have on women...
- 1/19/2021
- by Jill Goldsmith and Ted Johnson
- Deadline Film + TV
Unless we awaken, the American people may well be sleepwalking into an electoral coup d’etat.
If their own words are to be believed, Donald Trump and his operatives have been preparing for the election heist for some time. The rough model will be the 2000 Bush V. Gore election, when, by a single vote, the Supreme Court halted the counting of ballots in Florida, thereby stealing the presidency for George W. Bush.
So ludicrous was that court’s stated rationale, based on a tortured reading of the U.S. Constitution...
If their own words are to be believed, Donald Trump and his operatives have been preparing for the election heist for some time. The rough model will be the 2000 Bush V. Gore election, when, by a single vote, the Supreme Court halted the counting of ballots in Florida, thereby stealing the presidency for George W. Bush.
So ludicrous was that court’s stated rationale, based on a tortured reading of the U.S. Constitution...
- 10/30/2020
- by Sean Wilentz
- Rollingstone.com
Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing on Tuesday played out almost exactly how you would expect.
As recent nominees before her have done, she avoided committing to a view on an array of different hotbed issues, including the Affordable Care Act, which is pending before the court next month; gun rights and abortion rights.
“Do you agree with Justice Scalia’s view that Roe was wrongly decided?” asked Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-ca).
“If I express a view on a precedent one way or another, whether I say whether I love it or I hate it, it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case,” Barrett said.
Feinstein then asked, “So on something that is really a major cause, a major effect on over half the population of this country who are women, after all, it is distressing not to get a straight answer.
As recent nominees before her have done, she avoided committing to a view on an array of different hotbed issues, including the Affordable Care Act, which is pending before the court next month; gun rights and abortion rights.
“Do you agree with Justice Scalia’s view that Roe was wrongly decided?” asked Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-ca).
“If I express a view on a precedent one way or another, whether I say whether I love it or I hate it, it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case,” Barrett said.
Feinstein then asked, “So on something that is really a major cause, a major effect on over half the population of this country who are women, after all, it is distressing not to get a straight answer.
- 10/13/2020
- by Ted Johnson
- Deadline Film + TV
When America lost Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the world lost a symbol of justice, brilliance, and goodness. She was petite in size, but monumental in impact. Her passing is an incalculable loss for our democracy and for all who strive to build a better future for our children.
Justice Ginsburg became an icon over the course of her quarter century as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Her towering intellect and devotion to the American promise of equality and opportunity for all was an inspiration to millions. How beautiful...
Justice Ginsburg became an icon over the course of her quarter century as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Her towering intellect and devotion to the American promise of equality and opportunity for all was an inspiration to millions. How beautiful...
- 10/11/2020
- by Nancy Pelosi
- Rollingstone.com
If the Republican Party’s who-cares-if-grandma-dies response to the coronavirus hasn’t convinced you that the “pro-life” label is absurd when applied to the GOP, then maybe this will: This morning, President Donald Trump’s government executed the first federal prisoner in 17 years. And it did so with the blessing of the Supreme Court, which is paving the way for more and more executions.
Since 2003, the federal government has had a de facto moratorium on the death penalty. Even though some federal convicts have been sentenced to death during this time (such as Dylann Roof,...
Since 2003, the federal government has had a de facto moratorium on the death penalty. Even though some federal convicts have been sentenced to death during this time (such as Dylann Roof,...
- 7/14/2020
- by David S. Cohen
- Rollingstone.com
The Supreme Court delivered a momentous ruling in favor of LGBT rights on Monday, deciding that gay, lesbian and transgender workers are protected by federal anti-discrimination law.
The 6-3 decision means that LGBT employees cannot be fired for their sexual orientation, a possibility that still exists in many states even in the five years since same-sex marriage was ruled legal.
The justices decided that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis on sex, also applies to sexual orientation.
The case involved two plaintiffs who were fired by their employers after revealing that they were gay, and a transgender individual who was terminated from her job after revealing her gender identify to her boss.
The Trump administration justice department had urged the court not to conclude that Title VII extends to LGBT Americans. But Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was nominated by Trump, wrote in...
The 6-3 decision means that LGBT employees cannot be fired for their sexual orientation, a possibility that still exists in many states even in the five years since same-sex marriage was ruled legal.
The justices decided that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis on sex, also applies to sexual orientation.
The case involved two plaintiffs who were fired by their employers after revealing that they were gay, and a transgender individual who was terminated from her job after revealing her gender identify to her boss.
The Trump administration justice department had urged the court not to conclude that Title VII extends to LGBT Americans. But Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was nominated by Trump, wrote in...
- 6/15/2020
- by Ted Johnson
- Deadline Film + TV
The Supreme Court is postponing oral arguments through the end of the month in light of the coronavirus crisis.
The building already has been closed to the public, meaning that the justices and attorneys would have held hearings with no gallery.
More from DeadlineAssociation Of Talent Agents Shuts Down Office During Coronavirus Pandemic; Staff Will Work Remotely'The Matrix 4' Production Pauses In Berlin Amid Coronavirus ClimateCoronavirus: TV Shows That Have Halted Or Delayed Production Amid Outbreak
“The Court will examine the options for rescheduling those cases in due course in light of the developing circumstances,” according to the court’s public information office.
But the court announced the postponement of cases planned from March 23-25 and March 30-April 1. There were no oral arguments scheduled for this week.
Among the arguments postponed is a case having to do with the ability of congressional committees and New York state authorities to subpoena...
The building already has been closed to the public, meaning that the justices and attorneys would have held hearings with no gallery.
More from DeadlineAssociation Of Talent Agents Shuts Down Office During Coronavirus Pandemic; Staff Will Work Remotely'The Matrix 4' Production Pauses In Berlin Amid Coronavirus ClimateCoronavirus: TV Shows That Have Halted Or Delayed Production Amid Outbreak
“The Court will examine the options for rescheduling those cases in due course in light of the developing circumstances,” according to the court’s public information office.
But the court announced the postponement of cases planned from March 23-25 and March 30-April 1. There were no oral arguments scheduled for this week.
Among the arguments postponed is a case having to do with the ability of congressional committees and New York state authorities to subpoena...
- 3/16/2020
- by Ted Johnson
- Deadline Film + TV
Exclusive: The first round of public impeachment hearings wrapped up on November 21, but today saw the debut of a new video venture examining the process to potentially extradite Donald Trump from the Oval Office.
Moving in where perhaps Meet The Press fears to tread, this morning The Circus co-host John Heilemann and former Acting Solicitor General and NBC/MSNBC analyst Neal Katyal launch The I-Word on The Recount site and app.
As the name more than suggests, the 15-minute weekly series will focus on the ever-expanding House of Representatives inquiry into the former Celebrity Apprentice host’s attempts to allegedly strong arm the newly installed Ukrainian government to start probing ex-vp Joe Biden and his family. As one would expect from Game Change co-author, Wu-Tang Clan megafan and The Recount editor-in-chief Heilemann, the first original content series from the fairly recently premiering mobile platform aims to stir up the partisan Kool-Aid
To that goal,...
Moving in where perhaps Meet The Press fears to tread, this morning The Circus co-host John Heilemann and former Acting Solicitor General and NBC/MSNBC analyst Neal Katyal launch The I-Word on The Recount site and app.
As the name more than suggests, the 15-minute weekly series will focus on the ever-expanding House of Representatives inquiry into the former Celebrity Apprentice host’s attempts to allegedly strong arm the newly installed Ukrainian government to start probing ex-vp Joe Biden and his family. As one would expect from Game Change co-author, Wu-Tang Clan megafan and The Recount editor-in-chief Heilemann, the first original content series from the fairly recently premiering mobile platform aims to stir up the partisan Kool-Aid
To that goal,...
- 11/24/2019
- by Dominic Patten
- Deadline Film + TV
Supreme Court Justices Quiz Byron Allen’s Lawyers on Legal Standards for Racial Discrimination Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Byron Allen’s racial discrimination case against Comcast on Wednesday, pressing both sides with questions about the legal standards for such claims.
The case stems from a 2015 racial discrimination lawsuit in which Allen and his company Entertainment Studios Networks accused Comcast and other telecoms of refusing to carry Esn’s cable channels, which include Cars.TV and Pets.TV, because of Allen’s race.
Allen’s $20 billion lawsuit was dismissed three times at the district level, but the Ninth Circuit appeals court reversed that decision earlier this year. That Ninth Circuit ruling, which set a lower legal standard for demonstrating discrimination, is now being challenged by Comcast before the Supreme Court.
Also Read: Byron Allen's Entertainment Studios to Buy 11 Regional Broadcast TV Stations for $290 Million
Lawyers for Comcast are arguing that Allen should have had to demonstrate that race was a...
The case stems from a 2015 racial discrimination lawsuit in which Allen and his company Entertainment Studios Networks accused Comcast and other telecoms of refusing to carry Esn’s cable channels, which include Cars.TV and Pets.TV, because of Allen’s race.
Allen’s $20 billion lawsuit was dismissed three times at the district level, but the Ninth Circuit appeals court reversed that decision earlier this year. That Ninth Circuit ruling, which set a lower legal standard for demonstrating discrimination, is now being challenged by Comcast before the Supreme Court.
Also Read: Byron Allen's Entertainment Studios to Buy 11 Regional Broadcast TV Stations for $290 Million
Lawyers for Comcast are arguing that Allen should have had to demonstrate that race was a...
- 11/13/2019
- by Reid Nakamura
- The Wrap
Updated, 9:05 Am: Byron Allen’s racial discrimination case against Comcast came before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, as some of the justices questioned what a plaintiff has to show in a pleading to survive beyond its initial stages.
At issue is whether Allen’s $20 billion lawsuit should have survived beyond the pleading stage by merely proving that his race was a “motivating factor” in Comcast’s decision to deny carriage of his company’s channels, or whether it was the sole cause, something called “but for” in legalese.
The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Allen last year, and some of the justices found fault with the lower court’s reasoning. There also was skepticism of issuing a definitive ruling that established a lower threshold when a case is first filed, and a higher one if it reaches a trial.
“Wouldn’t it be unusual for us to say...
At issue is whether Allen’s $20 billion lawsuit should have survived beyond the pleading stage by merely proving that his race was a “motivating factor” in Comcast’s decision to deny carriage of his company’s channels, or whether it was the sole cause, something called “but for” in legalese.
The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Allen last year, and some of the justices found fault with the lower court’s reasoning. There also was skepticism of issuing a definitive ruling that established a lower threshold when a case is first filed, and a higher one if it reaches a trial.
“Wouldn’t it be unusual for us to say...
- 11/13/2019
- by Ted Johnson
- Deadline Film + TV
Washington, D.C. — Supreme Court justices grilled lawyers for Byron Allen and Comcast on Wednesday over the right legal standard for evaluating the racial discrimination claims made in Allen’s 2015 lawsuit against the cable giant.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh engaged in spirited questioning of both sides. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the only one of the nine justices not in attendance. Roberts said at the start of the hourlong hearing that Ginsburg was “indisposed due to illness” but would still participate in the decision by considering the briefs and reading the transcripts.
The justices spent a good deal of time quizzing the lawyers about the distinction between the two key tests for the case at issue before the court. Allen’s team, led by Erwin Chemerinsky, argued that the plaintiff should only have to demonstrate...
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh engaged in spirited questioning of both sides. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the only one of the nine justices not in attendance. Roberts said at the start of the hourlong hearing that Ginsburg was “indisposed due to illness” but would still participate in the decision by considering the briefs and reading the transcripts.
The justices spent a good deal of time quizzing the lawyers about the distinction between the two key tests for the case at issue before the court. Allen’s team, led by Erwin Chemerinsky, argued that the plaintiff should only have to demonstrate...
- 11/13/2019
- by Cynthia Littleton
- Variety Film + TV
Washington — The Supreme Court’s five conservatives ruled Thursday that federal courts have no role to play in striking down politically rigged congressional maps that deny equal representations to citizens of a given state. The court’s majority opinion, responding to two lawsuits challenging gerrymandered maps in Maryland and North Carolina, effectively punted, saying there is no standard to decide such cases. The decision is a serious blow to voting rights groups who had hoped the high court would step in and set a precedent on the issue of gerrymandering.
- 6/27/2019
- by Andy Kroll
- Rollingstone.com
A Los Angeles-based streetwear company can now get a trademark on its F-word-adjacent name, after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday morning struck down a federal law banning “scandalous” or “immoral” registrations.
That’s good news for Erik Brunetti (pictured above), who launched Fuct nearly three decades ago alongside skateboarding icon Natas Kaupas, but has been unable to obtain a trademark for the brand’s name. The trademark office had considered applications to be “scandalous” if they were “shocking to the sense of truth, decency, or propriety” or were “disgraceful, offensive, disreputable.”
But Justice Elena Kagan, in explaining the court’s 6-3 ruling, said the law infringed on the First Amendment because it “disfavors certain ideas.”
Also Read: LL Cool J Sues Festival Founders Over 'Rock the Bells' Use
The law, Kagan said, reached too far: rather than “draw the line at lewd, sexually explicit, or profane remarks,” it...
That’s good news for Erik Brunetti (pictured above), who launched Fuct nearly three decades ago alongside skateboarding icon Natas Kaupas, but has been unable to obtain a trademark for the brand’s name. The trademark office had considered applications to be “scandalous” if they were “shocking to the sense of truth, decency, or propriety” or were “disgraceful, offensive, disreputable.”
But Justice Elena Kagan, in explaining the court’s 6-3 ruling, said the law infringed on the First Amendment because it “disfavors certain ideas.”
Also Read: LL Cool J Sues Festival Founders Over 'Rock the Bells' Use
The law, Kagan said, reached too far: rather than “draw the line at lewd, sexually explicit, or profane remarks,” it...
- 6/24/2019
- by Sean Burch
- The Wrap
Who likes watching mediocre college basketball?? Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan!!!! Judge Kagan was front and center at McDonough Arena at Georgetown University on Wednesday to watch her alma mater Harvard take on the Hoyas in the Nit basketball tournament. Kagan's Crimson were the underdogs going into the game with a #6 seed -- facing a #3 seed in Georgetown, which also happens to feature college basketball star Mac McClung. Oh, and the head coach at Georgetown is NBA legend Patrick Ewing.
- 3/21/2019
- by TMZ Staff
- TMZ
CBS Late Show star Stephen Colbert reminded fans that, while his show has a lot of fun talking about some of the terrible things President Donald Trump says on camera, it’s not fair to single him out because a lot of people say terrible things.
“And, by a lot of people I mean Tucker Carlson,” he segued, becoming the latest program to dive into Media Matters’ trove of controversial Carlson comments made between 2006-11 on a radio talk show hosted by shock jock Bubba the Love Sponge.
In one such conversation, Carlson and Sponge talked about the physical appearance of then Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. Carlson felt sorry for her, because she is “never going to be an attractive woman.”
“Harsh words from the next 007 here,” Colbert snarked, of Carlson.
Among the more stunning conversations dug up by Media Matters, Carlson and Sponge mulled Utah polygamist leader Warren...
“And, by a lot of people I mean Tucker Carlson,” he segued, becoming the latest program to dive into Media Matters’ trove of controversial Carlson comments made between 2006-11 on a radio talk show hosted by shock jock Bubba the Love Sponge.
In one such conversation, Carlson and Sponge talked about the physical appearance of then Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. Carlson felt sorry for her, because she is “never going to be an attractive woman.”
“Harsh words from the next 007 here,” Colbert snarked, of Carlson.
Among the more stunning conversations dug up by Media Matters, Carlson and Sponge mulled Utah polygamist leader Warren...
- 3/12/2019
- by Lisa de Moraes
- Deadline Film + TV
Stephen Colbert shot down Tucker Carlson's resurfaced controversial remarks about Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan and religious leader Warren Jeffs on his Monday show, addressing the Fox News opinion-show host directly and calling him "awful on so many levels."
In the Late Show host's second monologue, Colbert introduced the news that Media Matters for America, a progressive activist organization, had unearthed audio of conversations between Carlson and Bubba the Love Sponge, the host of a "shock-jock" radio show. In the clips, which date from his time as both an MSNBC and Fox News contributor, Carlson is heard ...
In the Late Show host's second monologue, Colbert introduced the news that Media Matters for America, a progressive activist organization, had unearthed audio of conversations between Carlson and Bubba the Love Sponge, the host of a "shock-jock" radio show. In the clips, which date from his time as both an MSNBC and Fox News contributor, Carlson is heard ...
- 3/12/2019
- The Hollywood Reporter - Film + TV
Ruth Bader Ginsburg had two cancerous nodules removed from her left lung on Friday, according to a statement released by the Supreme Court. The procedure took place at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, where doctors found no evidence of “any remaining disease” in Ginsburg’s lung or elsewhere. “Justice Ginsburg is resting comfortably and is expected to remain in the hospital for a few days,” the statement read. Liberals, feel free to exhale.
Breaking: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent a pulmonary lobectomy in NYC today to...
Breaking: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent a pulmonary lobectomy in NYC today to...
- 12/21/2018
- by Ryan Bort
- Rollingstone.com
5:52 Pm Pt -- President Trump and Melania have arrived to pay their respects. George H.W. Bush is being honored by Washington, D.C.'s biggest power players -- past and present -- as a week-long memorial gets underway. The State Funeral for our 41st President was held Monday in the Capitol Rotunda and the attendees included H.W.'s veep Dan Quayle, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.
- 12/4/2018
- by TMZ Staff
- TMZ
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-ia), the second oldest sitting senator in Congress, can be a harsh critic. He’s never been shy, for example, about voicing his disapproval of History Channel programming.
Grassley had nothing but praise, though, for his colleague Rep. Steve King (R-ia) on Monday. The chairman of the senate judiciary committee issued a hearty video endorsement for the embattled congressman just a few hours after King expressed hope Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor would “elope to Cuba.”
Chuck Grassley gives a number of reasons why Steve King...
Grassley had nothing but praise, though, for his colleague Rep. Steve King (R-ia) on Monday. The chairman of the senate judiciary committee issued a hearty video endorsement for the embattled congressman just a few hours after King expressed hope Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor would “elope to Cuba.”
Chuck Grassley gives a number of reasons why Steve King...
- 11/6/2018
- by Tessa Stuart
- Rollingstone.com
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-nd) is currently battling to retain her Senate seat, but it’s not looking good. She’s long trailed her Republican challenger Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-nd) in the polls, and last week, she voted against Brett Kavanaugh knowing full well it could hurt her chances to win in November. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court made it even more difficult for Heitkamp to carry her state next month, which Trump won in 2016 by over 35 percentage points. Though Kavanaugh did not participate in the vote, the nation’s highest...
- 10/10/2018
- by Ryan Bort
- Rollingstone.com
President Trump has nominated 53-year-old Brett Kavanaugh as the next justice to serve on the Supreme Court.
“Judge Kavanaugh has impeccable credentials, unsurpassed qualifications and a proven commitment to equal justice under the law,“ Trump said while making the announcement at the White House, going on to describe him as a “judge’s judge” and “one of the finest and sharpest legal minds of our time.”
“This incredibly qualified nominee deserves a swift confirmation and robust bipartisan support,” the president added.
The nomination comes less than two weeks after Justice...
“Judge Kavanaugh has impeccable credentials, unsurpassed qualifications and a proven commitment to equal justice under the law,“ Trump said while making the announcement at the White House, going on to describe him as a “judge’s judge” and “one of the finest and sharpest legal minds of our time.”
“This incredibly qualified nominee deserves a swift confirmation and robust bipartisan support,” the president added.
The nomination comes less than two weeks after Justice...
- 7/10/2018
- by Ryan Bort
- Rollingstone.com
Refresh for latest… As organized labor was left reeling from today’s Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. Afscme that public service employees don’t have to pay union fees, Hollywood guilds planted a flag of defiance.
In the high court’s second 5-4 decision along party lines in two days, following Monday’s upholding of President Donald Trump’s Muslin travel ban, the justices struck down an Illinois law that mandates nonunion workers pay fees toward collective bargaining. In his majority opinion (read it here), Justice Samuel Alito wrote: “It is hard to estimate how many billions of dollars have been taken from nonmembers and transferred to public-sector unions in violation of the First Amendment. Those unconstitutional exactions cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely,” Alito wrote.
In an impassioned dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, “The First Amendment was meant for better things.”
Here is what the showbiz unions are saying today.
In the high court’s second 5-4 decision along party lines in two days, following Monday’s upholding of President Donald Trump’s Muslin travel ban, the justices struck down an Illinois law that mandates nonunion workers pay fees toward collective bargaining. In his majority opinion (read it here), Justice Samuel Alito wrote: “It is hard to estimate how many billions of dollars have been taken from nonmembers and transferred to public-sector unions in violation of the First Amendment. Those unconstitutional exactions cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely,” Alito wrote.
In an impassioned dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, “The First Amendment was meant for better things.”
Here is what the showbiz unions are saying today.
- 6/27/2018
- by Erik Pedersen
- Deadline Film + TV
Washington — The Supreme Court upheld President Donald Trump’s travel ban on Tuesday, ruling 5-4 that the administration’s restrictions on foreign nationals entering the U.S. fell within the scope of presidential authority.
The ban — which included Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria and Venezuela and Yemen — was challenged by the state of Hawaii. The plaintiffs also included three individuals with relatives from Iran, Syria, and Yemen, and the Muslim Association of Hawaii.
The 5-4 decision is a key victory for Trump, who issued a travel ban after just a week in office. It was later modified after it was challenged in court, but it continued to face challenges from the states. One of their main arguments was that the ban singled out Muslims, and they cited Trump’s own rhetoric on the campaign trail and in the White House.
Trump tweeted soon after the ruling.
Supreme Court Upholds Trump Travel Ban.
The ban — which included Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria and Venezuela and Yemen — was challenged by the state of Hawaii. The plaintiffs also included three individuals with relatives from Iran, Syria, and Yemen, and the Muslim Association of Hawaii.
The 5-4 decision is a key victory for Trump, who issued a travel ban after just a week in office. It was later modified after it was challenged in court, but it continued to face challenges from the states. One of their main arguments was that the ban singled out Muslims, and they cited Trump’s own rhetoric on the campaign trail and in the White House.
Trump tweeted soon after the ruling.
Supreme Court Upholds Trump Travel Ban.
- 6/26/2018
- by Ted Johnson
- Variety Film + TV
In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple for religious reasons.
According to USA Today, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the court’s 7-2 decision, which seemed to go against his history of opinions favoring gay rights.
The verdict criticized the state’s treatment of Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jake Phillips’ religious views, and held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was hostile toward the baker’s beliefs, according to CNN, specifically when the commission suggested his claims of religious freedom were made to justify his discrimination against the same-sex couple.
In doing so, reported CNBC, the commission violated Phillips’ religious rights under the First Amendment.
Also Read: Candace Cameron Bure Defends Bakery That Refused to Make Cake For Lesbian Couple (Video)
The decision was narrowly focused on the commission’s treatment...
According to USA Today, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the court’s 7-2 decision, which seemed to go against his history of opinions favoring gay rights.
The verdict criticized the state’s treatment of Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jake Phillips’ religious views, and held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was hostile toward the baker’s beliefs, according to CNN, specifically when the commission suggested his claims of religious freedom were made to justify his discrimination against the same-sex couple.
In doing so, reported CNBC, the commission violated Phillips’ religious rights under the First Amendment.
Also Read: Candace Cameron Bure Defends Bakery That Refused to Make Cake For Lesbian Couple (Video)
The decision was narrowly focused on the commission’s treatment...
- 6/4/2018
- by Beatrice Verhoeven
- The Wrap
Vin Diesel's definitely cool ... but not too cool to not go back to school. The 'Fast & Furious' star returned to Hunter College of the City University of New York almost 30 years after he left the school to pursue his Hollywood dream ... proudly holding his honorary Ph.D on Wednesday as he gave the school's commencement speech in front of nearly 2,000 grads at Radio City Music Hall. Vin's undoubtedly one of the...
- 5/31/2018
- by TMZ Staff
- TMZ
IMDb.com, Inc. takes no responsibility for the content or accuracy of the above news articles, Tweets, or blog posts. This content is published for the entertainment of our users only. The news articles, Tweets, and blog posts do not represent IMDb's opinions nor can we guarantee that the reporting therein is completely factual. Please visit the source responsible for the item in question to report any concerns you may have regarding content or accuracy.