- From NPR: The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that asked if it was unconstitutional for police to take a DNA swab without a warrant. Does this allow for the types of general searches the 4th amendment was written to prevent?
- From ScotusBlog: A preview of the upcoming argument before the Supreme Court regarding the pre-clearance requirement in the Voting Rights Act. There has been a growing argument that pre-clreance is no longer necessary.
- From the Washington Post: The Supreme Court declined to hear a case challenging bans on allowing corporations to make direct contributions to federal candidates. This means the existing rule stands because not enough justices believes there is a sufficient case that is is unconstitutional.
- From the Washington Post: The Supreme Court will consider a challange on limits to the total amount a person can contribute to" candidates, political parties and political action committees."
- From the San Antonio Express: A federal prosecutor was called out by two Supreme Court Justices for making "racially charged comments" when croww examining an African-American defendant in a trial: “You've got African Americans, you've got Hispanics, you've got a bag full of money. Does that tell you — a light bulb doesn't go off in your head and say, 'This is a drug deal?'”
- From MSNBC: The White House issued a legal brief supporting the argument that portions of the Defense of Marriage Act violate the Constitution.
- From the NYT: A group of prominent Republicans have done the same, but in support of the law suit arguing that the California ballot initiative banning same sex marriage is an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause.
This is enough for now.
