Last week, Senator Patty Murray of Washington introduced legislation that would have undone the recent Supreme Court Hobby Lobby ruling, in which the nation’s highest court found that closely held private corporations can exempt themselves from a federal law requiring them to provide health insurance that covers female contraception. Yesterday, the bill fell four votes short of moving forward, but it’s supporters are pledging to bring it up for another vote later in the year. [More]
In response to the recent Supreme Court decision that gave Hobby Lobby and other closely held private companies the ability to get around the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate by claiming a religious objection, a group of lawmakers are set to introduce legislation that would override that decision. [More]
This morning, the Supreme Court issued its ruling on one of the most-watched cases of the season, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. The issue was employer-provided healthcare, and what companies are required to provide under the Affordable Care Act. But the broader issues brought up by the ruling have implications beyond one craft store’s benefits package. [More]
The fallout from last week’s Supreme Court ruling against streaming video startup Aereo continues, with broadcasters arguing that the SCOTUS decision bolsters their legal efforts to shut down Dish Network’s Dish Anywhere service. [More]
The Supreme Court today put an end to years of contentious debate over whether or not police can search the phones of people they arrest without first getting a warrant, ruling unanimously that law enforcement must always have a warrant before they can do the search. [More]
As you’ve probably heard, earlier today the Supreme Court plunged a shiv into the gut of Aereo, siding with the broadcast networks in their lawsuit against the streaming video startup. Not surprisingly, the company’s CEO, who previously said he had no Plan B if the decision went against Aereo, is not exactly happy with the court’s divided ruling. [More]
A divided Supreme Court has sided with the broadcasters in their lawsuit against streaming video startup Aereo. A 6-3 decision reverses an earlier ruling by a federal appeals court that Aereo did not violate broadcasters’ copyright. This end result is that Aereo is effectively illegal in the eyes of SCOTUS. [More]
The Supreme Court today issued rulings on a handful of cases. One was about two companies nobody’s ever really heard of, arguing over patents for software to manage banking transactions. The details of the patents themselves, and the transactions they deal with, are kind of complicated and insidery — but they’re also not necessarily that important. The broader implications of the ruling, and the legal precedent the Court set with it, though, will have an impact for years to come. [More]
If I go on Facebook and tell someone in Florida that I am going to beat him into a bloody pulp and maybe kidnap his kid for good measure, I’m in violation of federal law. But does it matter whether I actually intend to do any of these things or if I’m just ranting with no intention of getting up from my comfy couch to do anyone any harm? That’s the question the Supreme Court will soon have to decide. [More]
While cord-cutters around the country wait impatiently for the Supreme Court to make up its mind about the legality of Aereo — the subscription service that collects local over-the-air broadcast TV feeds and streams them to paying users over the Internet — we’ve been looking into what it would take to replicate something close to Aereo that couldn’t be shut down by SCOTUS. [More]
Many big court cases involve one side arguing to maintain the status quo while the other contends that the current situation needs revising. But tomorrow, the broadcast TV networks face off against startup streaming video service Aereo in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that could have far-reaching implications no matter which side is victorious. [More]
Earlier today, the Supreme Court issued a much-anticipated decision in a case involving limits on donations to political campaigns. In a 5-4 decision, the Supremes ruled that caps placed on an individual’s total campaign contributions were a violation of their First Amendment rights. [More]
Earlier today, the Supreme Court ruled that it’s okay for companies to effectively preempt class-action lawsuits by putting mandatory binding arbitration clauses into their contracts with consumers. To most of us, that looks like a slap in the face to the American consumer, but the folks at AT&T want us all to know that the Supreme Court decision is actually going to benefit us all. [More]
In a huge blow to peeved consumers, the Supreme Court ruled earlier today that companies can block customers from joining together in a class-action suit by forcing each complaint into arbitration.
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that debt collectors can’t use a “bona fide error” defense to avoid being sued for misinterpreting the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA). In other words, if a debt collection agency makes a demand that’s in violation of the Act, it can’t say it didn’t know any better. Well, it can, but you can go right ahead and sue. [More]
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Diana Levine in Wyeth v. Levine. Levine, a musician, had her arm amputated when an anti-nausea drug was improperly administered in her artery, and sued the manufacturer for failing to warn of the risks on the drug’s label. Wyeth claimed that her case was pre-empted by federal law.