[Politics] :
Four candidates have been shortlisted to succeed Supreme Court Justice Kim Sang-hwan who will retire on December 27. The top court’s committee on recommending candidates held a meeting on Thursday and decided to put forth four candidates out of a total 37 to Chief Justice Jo Hee-de.  The four ...

[more...]

West Virginia’s Supreme Court upheld a finding of compensability for a worker with a knee injury. Case: P&G Tabler Station v. Hiett, No. 23-703, 10/30/2024, published. Facts: David Hiett worked for P&G Tabler…

Nvidia, the AI-chip giant, petitioned the nation's highest court after a lower court permitted a 2018 class action lawsuit to move ahead.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Nvidia’s bid to appeal a securities fraud lawsuit today, just days after… Continue reading US Supreme Court to hear bid by Nvidia to appeal securities fraud lawsuit

The post US Supreme Court to hear bid by Nvidia to appeal securities fraud lawsuit appeared first on ReadWrite.

A man killed himself with a bomb outside Brazil's Supreme Court after trying to enter the building, officials said, stirring security concerns before the country hosts global leaders from the Group of 20 major economies.

The Supreme Court has rejected a petition from Mark Meadows, the former White House chief of staff during the first Trump administration, to move his 2020 election subversion case to federal court.

Two explosions near Brazil's Supreme Court and Congress forced evacuations Wednesday night with one man found dead in what some authorities are calling a suicide attack.

A man with explosives died Wednesday trying to enter Brazil's Supreme Court in what appeared to be a suicide, officials said, days before the country hosts the G20 summit.

SAO PAULO — Two explosions outside Brazil's Supreme Court on Wednesday killed a man and forced the justices and staff to evacuate the building in the capital of Brasilia. The court said in a statement that two very strong blasts were heard at about 7:30 p.m. local time, shortly after Wednesday's session had finished. It added that all the justices and staff left the building safely after the incident. A police statement had said earlier that an artifact exploded outside the court. Local firefighters confirmed that one man died at the scene but did not identify him. Local media reported that the second explosion occurred about 20 seconds after the first. The incident took place in Brasilia's Three Powers Plaza, where Brazil's main government buildings, including the Supreme Court, Congress and presidential palace, are located. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was not in the neighboring presidential palace at the time of the blasts, spokesperson José Chrispiniano said. Police blocked all access to the area, and the presidential security bureau was conducting a sweep of the grounds around the presidential palace. Brazil's federal police force said it was investigating and did not provide a motive. The Supreme Court in recent years has become a target for threats by far-right groups and supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro due to its crackdown on the spread of false information. Justice Alexandre de Moraes in particular has been a focus for their ire. Earlier, another explosion was heard outside Brazil's Congress, but it apparently did not cause damages. 

The Brazilian Supreme Court was evacuated Wednesday following two explosions in its vicinity, stoking security concerns in the G20's leadup.

Local officials told the AFP news agency that a body was found outside the building in an apparent attack.

The Supreme Court has laid down a series of pan-India directives, stating that no demolition will be carried out without serving at least a 15-day prior notice. The apex court's decision came in response to a series of petitions alleging that demolitions were carried out by several state authorities without sufficient notice.

The Supreme Court has issued a series of directives governing the demolition of unauthorized structures across the country. The court has cautioned that any violation of these directives by state officials will result in criminal contempt and prosecution.

1. One dead after two reported explosions near Brazil’s Supreme Court  Al Jazeera English
2. Brazil: 1 killed in explosions outside Supreme Court; judges safely evacuated  Hindustan Times
3. Video: Explosions Go Off Near Brazil’s Government Offices  The New York Times
4. One dead following blasts at Brazil Supreme Court  BBC.com
5. One dead after explosion takes place outside Brazil's Supreme Court  The Times of India

It is a significant step towards safeguarding the rule of law and fundamental rights of citizens, say Jamiat leaders

The Bench asked the Ajit Pawar camp to circulate an online message among its leaders, party workers and representatives against using the pictures or video/audio clips of Sharad Pawar, whether old or new

Calls for a list of five to seven direct recruit IPS officers, including three women, who hail from other States but are now serving in Tamil Nadu cadre

The Apex court maintains that these guidelines do not apply in cases of unauthorized public land construction or where demolition is mandated by a court ruling

The top court has issued a slew of guidelines aimed at ensuring institutional accountability to curb retributive demolitions by state authorities

1. ‘Bulldozer will remain parked in garage’: Akhilesh Yadav, Asaduddin Owaisi welcome Supreme Court guidelines | Mint  Mint
2. Officers Carrying Out Illegal Demolitions Liable To Restore Properties At Personal Cost & Pay Damages:...  Live Law - Indian Legal News
3. On ‘bulldozer justice’ Supreme Court sends a message. Will it be heard?  The Indian Express
4. Supreme Court's Demolition Verdict Will Help Curb Organised Crime: UP  NDTV
5. Supreme Court verdict on bulldozer demolitions: Jamiat hails verdict, victims seek compensation  The Hindu

1. 'Stand On Your Own Legs' : Supreme Court Asks NCP(Ajit Pawar) To Not Use Photos & Videos Of Sharad Pawar...  Live Law - Indian Legal News
2. "Find Your Own Identity": Team Ajit Pawar Can't Use Sharad Pawar Pics  NDTV
3. 'Stand up on your legs': SC snubs Ajit Pawar's NCP over use of Sharad Pawar's photos in poll campaign  The Times of India
4. Stand on your own legs; why use Sharad Pawar's name? Supreme Court to Ajit Pawar NCP faction  Bar & Bench - Indian Legal News
5. Maharashtra Assembly Elections 2024 | Supreme Court bars Ajit-led NCP from using photos, videos of Sharad Pawar for campaigning  Deccan Herald

1. How Yogi Adityanath government reacted to Supreme Court's 'bulldozer justice' ruling  Moneycontrol
2. How the Supreme Court clamped down on ‘bulldozer’ demolition drives | Explained  The Hindu
3. Officers Carrying Out Illegal Demolitions Liable To Restore Properties At Personal Cost & Pay Damages:...  Live Law - Indian Legal News
4. Supreme Court's Demolition Verdict Will Help Curb Organised Crime: UP  NDTV
5. SC parked bulldozer in garage forever: Akhilesh Yadav  Hindustan Times

Indian-American Amul Thapar is among the shortlisted potential nominees for Supreme Court judge picked by President-elect Donald Trump.

Supreme Court On Bulldozer Justice : સુપ્રીમ કોર્ટે લોકોના ઘર તોડવા માટે કુખ્યાત ઉત્તર પ્રદેશની યોગી સરકારને મોટો ઝટકો આપ્યો છે. લોકોના ઘર તોડીને આનંદ લેતી યોગી સરકારને સુપ્રીમ કોર્ટે આકરા શબ્દોમાં રોકી છે. આ સાથે કોર્ટે ગાઈડલાઈન આપીને ગરીબોના ઘર

Supreme Court on Bulldozer Action: ભારતની સર્વોચ્ચ અદાલતે ચુકાદો આપ્યો છે કે કાનૂની પ્રક્રિયાઓનું પાલન કર્યા વિના મિલકતોને તોડી પાડવા માટે બુલડોઝરનો ઉપયોગ કરી શકાતો નથી. જસ્ટિસ બીઆર ગવઈ અને કે. વી. વિશ્વનાથને ભારપૂર્વક જણાવ્યું હતું કે, મિલકતના અધિકારોનું સન્માન કરવું

Supreme Court schedules ‘conference’ on Obama’s eligibility
February 18, 2011

In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another “conference” on a legal challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate.

The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of a conference on March 4.

The national litigation boutique MoloLamken LLP is pleased to announce the release of this year's MoloLamken Supreme Court Business Briefing.

In the wake of yesterdays Supreme Court ruling, e-commerce companies are understandably both concerned and uncertain of their future. The 5-4 verdict overruled a 1992 precedent set by the case Quill v. North Dakota that only addressed mail-order businesses at the time, but it became a powerful legal bedrock for the e-commerce industry. It let companies without a robust physical infrastructure thrive during and after the dot-com boom by exempting purchases from sales tax, so long as the seller did not have a physical operation in the state where the customer resided. Now, following the court’s decision, states can start charging sales tax on internet purchases even when a retailer has no physical presence in that state.

A number of retailers, from Amazon to Etsy to Overstock.com, may be impacted. It is not necessarily because those corporations have been skirting sales tax collection, but some enable thousands of third-party sellers to do so, largely thanks to Quill v. North Dakota. In fact, Amazon, which last year started collecting sales tax in all 45 states that require it by law, may have a substantial amount of work to do to help its Amazon Marketplace sellers stay compliant.

complete article

Small business advocates largely grumbled after the nation's highest court overturned a decades-old decision on online sales tax.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that states now have the power to force online retailers to collect sales tax in states where they do not have a physical presence, reversing a ruling from 1992 in a 5-4 decision. The move also revives a 2016 South Dakota law that required large, out-of-state e-commerce companies to collect sales tax, one that big e-commerce players fought. Some online retailers, such as Amazon.com, currently collect state sales tax on products they directly sell but do not collect taxes from many of the independent sellers on the site.

The decision removes the sales-tax savings that consumers could reap by making purchases online instead of buying from local brick-and-mortar shops. Although the move does help to level the playing field for physical small businesses, it also places new burdens on small online retailers.

complete article

Ghana's Supreme Court restored the ruling party's majority in the parliament on Tuesday ahead of the Dec. 7 election, with an order that the speaker's declaration of four seats as vacant was unconstitutional.

American gymnast Jordan Chiles is asking Switzerland's Supreme Court to overturn a ruling by the Court of Arbitration for Sport that stripped Chiles of a bronze medal in floor exercise at the 2024 Olympics.

Lincoln, NE — A corrections worker who was injured during a self-defense training course wasn’t wrongfully terminated after her injury left her with permanent work restrictions, the Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled.

A court ruled that an employer’s reasonable and good faith belief in compliance with wage statement laws precludes penalties for failing to report unpaid meal break premiums as wages.

Santa Ana, CA — California law permits prosecutors to seek civil penalties against employers facing accusations of workplace safety violations under the California Occupational Safety and Health Act, the state’s Supreme Court has ruled.

This week on Basic Black: In the wake of the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, a look at Massachusetts' "stand your ground" proposal and recent efforts to pass or block the legislation. Also, the pending Supreme Court decision on the Obama administration's health care reform legislation: however they decide, what are the political ramifications for President Obama's re-election campaign and the impact on communities of color.

Our panel:
- Callie Crossley, host and executive editor, The Callie Crossley Show
- Kim McLarin, author and assistant professor of writing, literature, and publishing, Emerson College
- Peniel Joseph, professor of history, Tufts University
- Phillip Martin, senior reporter, WGBH Radio



(Image source via Creative Commons: xtopalopaquetl)

Prof. Eric Posner explains a voting system for protecting the rights of minorities

A Christian counselor is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block enforcement of a Colorado law that regulates what licensed professionals can say while discussing unwanted same-sex attractions with clients, arguing that the state government censors speech it disfavors. 

Legal decisions are rarely read for pleasure. And though read and re-read and excerpted and quoted, they are not always quotable. Clocking in at an average of just under 5000 words, they can sound jargony, pompous and bone-dry in the wrong hands. Today's 10-Minute Writers Workshop asks an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States about what goes into writing an opinion. Justice Stephen Breyer was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1994 and is an exuberant advocate for participatory democracy, animated explainer of the reasoning behind decisions and author of several books. I spoke with Justice Breyer in the green room at The Music Hall in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, just before talking with him about his most recent, The Court and the World - American Law and the New Global Realities for Writers On A New England Stage. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The US Supreme Court is seen in Washington, DC on July 1, 2021.; Credit: MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

The U.S. Supreme Court ends its spring term today with two final decisions expected to come down, one involving a pivotal voting rights case out of Arizona and the other involving so-called “dark money” and campaign finance. 

Today on AirTalk, we’ll get a summary of the arguments that each side in the two cases will be making, and we’ll look back on the Spring 2021 term overall, as the nine justices will break until the fall.

Guests:

Vikram Amar, dean and professor of law at the University of Illinois College of Law

David Becker, executive director and founder of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, a nonpartisan, non-profit organization that works with election officials around the country to ensure convenient and secure voting for all voters; he is the former director of the elections program at The Pew Charitable Trusts and a former senior trial attorney in the Voting Section of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division; he tweets @beckerdavidj

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that low-level crack cocaine offenders cannot benefit from a 2018 federal law.; Credit: J. Scott Applewhite/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that some crack cocaine offenders sentenced to harsh prison terms more than a decade ago cannot get their sentences reduced under a federal law adopted with the purpose of doing just that.

At issue in the case was the long and now notorious history of sentencing under the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which established harsh mandatory prison sentences based on the amount of drugs that the defendant possessed or sold. The triggering amount, however, was different for crack cocaine used most often by Black people, and powder cocaine, used most often by whites.

Indeed, the ratio was 100-to-1, so that a five-year mandatory minimum penalty, for instance, was triggered by possession of 5 grams of crack, whereas the same penalty was triggered by 500 grams of powder cocaine.

Nine years after enactment of these mandatory penalties, the U.S. Sentencing Commission found these disparities unjustified, and by 2010 Congress passed new legislation to reduce the disparity to from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. But that left everyone previously sentenced under the old regime stuck with the harsher penalties. And in 2018, Congress passed and then-President Donald Trump signed into law a bipartisan bill to make the new ratios retroactive.

That allowed thousands of crack offenders who were serving prison sentences to be resentenced under the new law and new sentencing guidelines, with an average reduction of six years in their sentences. But while the new law allowed even drug kingpins to be resentenced, some prisoners were left out — a number now in the low hundreds, according to the Biden administration.

One of those was the prisoner at the center of Monday's case, Tarahrick Terry, sentenced to nearly 16 years in prison for possession with intent to distribute 3.9 grams of crack cocaine, less than the weight of four paper clips.

He claimed that his sentence, like others, should be revised in light of the 2018 law, but the Supreme Court rejected that argument. Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas noted that Terry had been sentenced under a section of the law that applied to "career criminals," those who had two previous drug or violent convictions. Terry did, in fact, have two previous drug convictions as a teenager — for which he spent 120 days in jail.

So, as Thomas observed, Terry was sentenced under the provision of the law that was not included in the 2018 revision.

Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin and Cory Booker and Republican Sens. Charles Grassley and Mike Lee — the sponsors and drafters of the act — warned in a friend of the court brief filed in the case that excluding low-level offenders from the act's reforms would mean ignoring its purpose. "Had Congress intended to exclude individuals with low-level crack offenses from relief," they wrote, "Congress of course could have done so."

Thomas and the rest of the court rejected that argument. "We will not convert nouns to adjectives and vice versa," wrote Thomas, which is what he said Congress was asking the court to do. The 2018 law, he said, did not change the section of the law under which Terry was sentenced, so the argument that the revision modified the whole law just wouldn't wash.

Although the decision was unanimous, it included an interesting back-and-forth about race between Thomas, the only African American on the court and arguably its most conservative member, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, its only Hispanic and arguably most liberal member. Specifically, their disagreement was about the role race played in the adoption of mandatory minimum sentences that were wildly more harsh for possession or sale of crack cocaine than for powder cocaine.

As Thomas saw it, the 100-to-1 ratio for crack cocaine was enacted "with near unanimity" by Congress, because of two concerns expressed by Black leaders at the time: First, that crack "was fueling crime against residents in the inner cities who were predominantly black," and second that "prosecutors were not taking these kinds of crimes seriously enough because the victims were disproportionately black." Moreover, he quoted a 1995 U.S. Sentencing Commission report that concluded the 100-to-1 ratio created "a perception of unfairness," even though there was no reason to believe that "racial bias or animus undergirded the initiation of the federal sentencing law."

In a concurring opinion, Sotomayor declined to join that part of Thomas' opinion, because "it includes an unnecessary, incomplete, and sanitized history of the 100-to-1 ratio," including "race-based myths" about crack cocaine.

"The full history is far less benign," she said. It ignores the fact that Black leaders were promised federal investment in longer term solutions — including in job training and education programs — but that help never arrived. Nor, she noted, did the majority opinion mention that the bill containing the 100-to-1 ratio was "rush[ed] through to pass dramatic drug legislation before the midterm elections," and that the legislative history of the bill offered no justification for the 100-to-1 ratio, "save that it was the highest ratio proposed."

"Most egregiously, the Court barely references the ratio's real-world impact" — one so profound and unjustified, as demonstrated by subsequent research — "that the [Congressional Black Caucus] came together in unanimous and increasingly vocal opposition to the law."

In the end, however, Sotomayor agreed that "unfortunately," the reading of the law urged by the primary sponsors of the 2018 revision is not born out by the text. "Fortunately," she added, "Congress has numerous tools to right this injustice."

As for prisoner Terry, who brought Monday's case, he is now in the final months of his prison term, and according to the Biden administration is serving his remaining time in home confinement.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A demonstrator holds a sign in support of the Affordable Care Act in front of the U.S. Supreme Court last November. On Thursday, the justices did just that.; Credit: Alex Brandon/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act for the third time on Thursday, leaving in place the broad provisions of the law enacted by Congress in 201o. The vote was 7 to 2.

The opinion was authored by Justice Stephen Breyer who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The decision threw out the challenge to the law on the grounds that Texas and other objecting GOP-dominated states were not required to pay anything under the mandate provision and thus had no standing to bring the challenge to court.

"To have standing, a plaintiff must 'allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief,' " the majority wrote. "No plaintiff has shown such an injury 'fairly traceable' to the 'allegedly unlawful conduct' challenged here."

The mandate, the most controversial provision of the law, required that people either buy health insurance or pay a penalty. In 2012, it was upheld by a 5-4 vote, with Chief Justice John Roberts casting the decisive fifth vote, on the grounds that the penalty fell within the taxing power of Congress.

In 2017, Congress got rid of the penalty after the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the law would continue to function effectively without it. That prompted the challengers to go back to court, contending that because the penalty had been zeroed out, it was no longer a tax or a mandate. What's more, they contended, because the mandate was so interwoven with the rest of the ACA, the whole law must be struck down.

Over 31 million Americans have access health insurance through the ACA — a record high since the law's inception, the White House said last week. In addition, the Urban Institute reported in May that ACA premiums have gone down each of the last three years.

Many of the provisions of the ACA are now taken for granted. Up to 135 million people are covered by the ban on discrimination against those with preexisting conditions.

Young adults are now permitted to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26; copays are not permitted for preventive care; and insurance companies can no longer put lifetime caps on benefits, are required to spend 80% of premiums on medical coverage and are barred from discrimination based on factors like gender.

In addition, Medicaid coverage was greatly expanded after all but a dozen states took advantage of the ACA to expand federally subsidized coverage under the program. Among those who have benefited are many who lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs in the COVID-19 pandemic.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with students on Wednesday, ruling that a former cheerleader's online F-bombs about her school is protected speech under the First Amendment.

By an 8-1 vote, the court declared that school administrators do have the power to punish student speech that occurs online or off campus if it genuinely disrupts classroom study. But the justices concluded that a few swear words posted online from off campus, as in this case, did not rise to the definition of disruptive.

"While public schools may have a special interest in regulating some off-campus student speech, the special interests offered by the school are not sufficient to overcome B. L.'s interest in free expression in this case," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court's majority.

At issue in the case was a series of F-bombs issued in 2017 on Snapchat by Brandi Levy, then a 14-year-old high school cheerleader who failed to win a promotion from the junior varsity to the varsity cheerleading term at her Pennsylvania school.

"I was really upset and frustrated at everything," she said in an interview with NPR in April. So she posted a photo of herself and a friend flipping the bird to the camera, along with a message that said, "F*** the school ... F*** cheer, F*** everything."

Suspended from the team for what was considered disruptive behavior, Brandi and her parents went to court. They argued that the school had no right to punish her for off-campus speech, whether it was posted online while away from school, as in this case, or spoken out loud at a Starbucks across the street from school.

A federal appeals court agreed with her, declaring that school officials have no authority to punish students for speech that occurs in places unconnected to the campus.

The decision marked the first time that an appeals court issued such a broad interpretation of the Supreme Court's landmark student speech decision more then a half century ago. Back then, in a case involving students suspended for wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War, the court ruled that students do have free speech rights under the Constitution, as long as the speech is not disruptive to the school.

Although Brandi Levy is now in college, the school board in Mahanoy, Pa., appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that disruption can come from outside the campus but still have serious effects on campus. It pointed to laws in 47 states that require schools to enforce anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies.

The high court, however, focused on the facts in Levy's case, concluding that while her posts were less than admirable, they did not meet the test of being disruptive.

"We do not believe the special characteristics that give schools additional license to regulate student speech always disappear when a school regulates speech that takes place off campus," Breyer wrote. "The school's regulatory interests remain significant in some off-campus circumstances."

In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote: "If today's decision teaches any lesson, it must be that the regulation of many types of off-premises student speech raises serious First Amendment concerns, and school officials should proceed cautiously before venturing into this territory."

In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the school was right to suspend Levy because students like her "who are active in extracurricular programs have a greater potential, by virtue of their participation, to harm those programs."

"For example, a profanity-laced screed delivered on social media or at the mall has a much different effect on a football program when done by a regular student than when done by the captain of the football team," Thomas wrote. "So, too, here."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

In a case originating with a California Highway Patrol officer's pursuit of a vehicle and ultimately entering the driver's home, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police may not enter homes without a warrant for minor crimes.; Credit: Chris Carlson/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police cannot enter a home without a warrant when pursuing someone for a minor crime.

By a unanimous vote, the court declared that police violated the rights of a California man by pursuing him into his garage for allegedly playing loud music while driving down a deserted two-lane highway late at night.

Writing for the court majority, Justice Elena Kagan said police had no right to enter the man's home without a warrant for such a trivial offense.

"On many occasions, the officer will have good reason to enter – to prevent imminent harms of violence, destruction of evidence, or escape from the home," she wrote. "But when the officer has time to get a warrant, he must do so – even though the misdemeanant fled."

The court's ruling came in the case of Arthur Lange, who was playing loud music in his car late one night, at one point honking his horn several times. A California highway patrol officer, believing Lange was violating a noise ordinance, followed him, and when the motorist slowed to enter his driveway, the officer put on his flashing lights.

Lange, who later said he didn't notice the police car, drove into his garage. The officer, in "hot pursuit," got out of his car and put his foot under the closing garage door sensor to force the door open again. He had no warrant to enter the home, but once inside, he said, he smelled liquor on Lange's breath and arrested him, not only for the noise violation, but also for driving under the influence.

Lange appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, contending that the officer had no right to enter his home without a warrant and that the DUI evidence had been illegally obtained.

The Supreme Court has long held that police may conduct a warrantless search when pursuing a fleeing felon. The question in Lange's case was whether police are free to do the same thing when pursuing someone suspected of a minor offense like playing loud music.

"[P]ursuit of a misdemeanant does not trigger a categorical rule allowing a warrantless home entry," she wrote.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The Supreme Court found that a law that allowed farmworkers union organizers onto farm property during nonworking hours unconstitutionally appropriates private land.; Credit: Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Wednesday tightened the leash on union representatives and their ability to organize farmworkers in California and elsewhere. At issue in the case was a California law that allows union organizers to enter farms to speak to workers during nonworking hours — before and after work, as well as during lunch — for a set a number of days each year.

By a 6-3 vote along ideological lines, the court ruled that the law — enacted nearly 50 years ago after a campaign by famed organizer Cesar Chavez — unconstitutionally appropriates private land by allowing organizers to go on farm property to drum up union support.

"The regulation appropriates a right to physically invade the growers' property," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's conservative majority. "The access regulation amounts to simple appropriation of private property."

The decision is a potentially mortal blow that threatens the very existence of the farmworkers union. However, the ruling stopped short of upending other laws that allow government officials to enter private property to inspect and enforce health and safety rules that cover everything restaurants to toxic chemical sites.

Indeed, as Roberts wrote: "Under this framework, government health and safety inspection regimes will generally not constitute takings."

The court's decision on Wednesday was only the latest in a series of decisions that have aimed directly at the heart of organized labor in the United States. In 2018, the court hamstrung public-sector unions' efforts to raise money for collective bargaining. In that decision, the court by a 5-4 vote overturned a 40-year precedent that had allowed unions to collect limited "fair share" fees from workers not in the union but who benefited from the terms of the contract that the union negotiated.

The case decided by the court on Wednesday began in 2015 at Cedar Point Nursery, near the Oregon border. The nursery's owner, Mike Fahner, said union organizers entered the farm at 5 a.m. one morning, without the required notice, and began harassing his workers with bullhorns. The general counsel for the United Farm Workers, Mario Martinez, countered that the people with bullhorns were striking workers, not union organizers.

When Cedar Point filed a complaint with the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, the board found no illegal behavior and dismissed the complaint. Cedar Point, joined by another California grower, appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing they should be able to exclude organizers from their farms.

Writing for the court's three liberals, Justice Stephen Breyer said the access in the case was "temporary" and so did not constitute a "taking" under the law.

The rule, he wrote , is "not functionally equivalent to the classic taking in which government directly appropriates private property or ousts the owner from his domain."

"In my view, the majority's conclusion threatens to make many ordinary forms of regulation unusually complex or impractical," he wrote.

The court's decision could be disastrous for unions in general, but especially those that represent low-income workers. The growers asserted that unions should have no problem organizing workers in the era of the internet. But many of the workers at Cedar Point don't own smartphones and don't have internet access. What's more, many speak Spanish or indigenous languages and live scattered throughout the area, in motels, in labor camps or with friends and family, often moving after just a few weeks when the seasonal harvest is over.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.