I woke up this morning to the internet buzzing about a new White House Twitter handle: @SCOTUSnom. Was the Supreme Court starting a food blog? But then I realized the new account was actually built as a kind of social media defense for President Obama’s Supreme Court nomination, Merrick Garland.
The US Supreme Court forbids cameras in the courtroom. But apparently one intern from CNN didn’t get the memo. He was removed from the Supreme Court press room today after he was caught with a GoPro strapped to his chest.
In a closely watched decision that weighs the protection of free speech against protecting people from online abuse, the Supreme Court today ruled in favor of people being scary dicks on the internet.
Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that police can no longer search your cell phone without a search warrant or an immediate threat of danger. There are plenty of caveats, but overall this is a victory for privacy advocates. Below are some of the highlights from the decision.
Turns out, SCOTUS doesn't like warrantless cell phone snooping. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the police generally need a warrant before searching cell phones or mobile devices of the people they arrest.
Not so long ago, gay marriage was still so controversial that California passed an anti-gay-marriage ballot initiative. How did all of this happen so quickly? Everybody is gay now, that's how it happened. Go back in time to the mid-2000s and relive the melodrama all over again.
Today was a historic day for equality, as the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the misleadingly named Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Futurist thinkers have been imagining this day for years, and back in 1990 Newsweek gave hints about what marriage might look like in the world of tomorrow.
By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The states with long histories of racism—specifically, the southern states where black humans were kept as slaves who could be legally bought, sold, raped and murdered—have had federal oversight since 1965 to protect minority voters. That's…
Last week, the Supreme Court issued a ruling on patenting "natural" DNA. It was a ruling so confusing that even Justice Scalia admitted he didn't feel qualified to understand it. Luckily, science journalist Maggie Koerth-Baker has spelled it all out (literally) for you.
Thank the gods. Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court had the good sense to ignore a case that would have prevented the government from funding embryonic stem cell research. Here's why their decision was a very good idea.