Back in February, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of a 17-year-old who applied to work for the children’s clothing store under the Abercrombie & Fitch brand. She was apparently beautiful enough to work there, but always wore a black scarf on her head. Did she wear it for religious reasons, which would mean that it couldn’t be a factor in hiring decisions? She didn’t say, so Abercrombie didn’t hire her. That case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued an opinion today. [More]
Lots of people have ill-will and mountains of unflattering things to say about their exes. Many of those people say those things online. But if your rant happens to be filled with violent language that makes your former partner afraid for their safety, even if you say you had no intention of ever following through, is it still a real threat?
There’s a true 21st-century case a-brewing at the Supreme Court, one of those unsexy legal questions with enormous potential repercussions. At heart of the matter is personal data. There’s an insane amount of it out there, on each and every one of us, and it’s all for trade, barter, and sale. But that doesn’t mean it’s all correct or true. So if some website or service goes around saying you’re someone you’re not, do you have the right to sue?
In theory, spring has finally sprung. But forget crocuses and breathably warm air; the real sign of seasonal change is baseball, America’s favorite monopoly. Major League Baseball has the dubious distinction not only of being entirely exempt from antitrust law, but also being the only major league sport with such a privilege. With the start of the 2015 season still some days away, we have time to take a look at the history, and the possible future, of this quirk.
Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments with regard to the legality of state laws that prohibit same-sex marriages. And while the issue has been politically divisive, many of the nation’s most powerful corporations — from airlines to insurance to beer to baseball teams — agree that banning gay marriage is not good for business. [More]
Five years ago, a teen applied for a job at a store selling clothes for a children’s clothing store that is part of the Abercrombie & Fitch brand. She wore a hijab, a headcovering that many female Muslims wear, and said that she would continue to wear it to work. This week, her case is before the U.S. Supreme Court, asking an odd question: does a job applicant need to specify that they’re wearing a religious garment or accessory for religious reasons? [More]
Supreme Court Rules Homeowners Don’t Have To Sue Lenders To Rescind Mortgage Under Truth In Lending Act
A ruling by the Supreme Court on Tuesday made it a little easier for consumers to back out of mortgages under the Truth In Lending Act when lenders fail to disclose full terms of the deal. [More]
A recent Supreme Court decision settled the question of whether workers should be paid for the time they spend having their belongings checked by security on the way out of work. The Supremes said “no,” but there may be room in state laws for retail and warehouse workers to be compensated for the time they spend waiting and being searched. [More]
It makes sense that people who work in Amazon warehouses have to go through security screenings when they leave work: the job is not very well paid and consists of boxing up an unfathomable variety of items at a fast pace. The Supreme Court will decide whether the workers’ employer––temp agencies that supply the warehouse workforce––should pay them for time waiting in line for screenings. [More]
Back in 2008, a 17-year-old in Oklahoma applied for a job at a local Abercrombie Kids store. She made the cut, but learned that the store’s “look policy” wouldn’t allow her to wear a religious head covering. Just over a year ago, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission won the right for employees to wear religious head coverings while they battle the cologne stench at Abercrombie, but the headscarf itself isn’t what this case is about. [More]
Content streaming company Aereo “paused” all operations this past Saturday, after losing their case in the Supreme Court last week. Today, the company’s CEO, Chet Kanojia, sent an e-mail to subscribers asking for their support and entreating them to “make [their] voices heard” with lawmakers in order to bring Aereo back. But he didn’t say what, specifically, loyal customers should ask their lawmakers to do. So in the wake of last week’s ruling, what law would have to change in order to make Aereo legal?
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.
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]
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.
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]
Aereo, the streaming video service that everyone’s talking about but few people actually have, defended its existence today in front of the U.S. Supreme Court while lawyers for the nation’s broadcasters and the federal government looked to smash the company’s tiny antennae into bits… legally speaking. [More]
As the top judicial body in the land, the United States Supreme Court has asked some pretty tough questions in its day. But yesterday the justices had a question for Coca-Cola that doesn’t seem like it should be so tricky: Shouldn’t a juice labeled as “pomegranate and blueberry” actually include a fair amount of, um, pomegranates? And blueberries? [More]
Next Tuesday, lawyers for the nation’s broadcast networks and streaming video startup Aereo will square off in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in a case where a victory by either side carries with it potentially huge implications for everything from over-the-air TV to all cloud-based technology. Since he won’t be the one talking to the Supremes, AEREO CEO Chet Kanojia has been making the interview rounds to make his case to the public. [More]