CNET: Supreme Court hears case on hacking law and its limits

CNET: Supreme Court hears case on hacking law and its limits. “For the first time, the US Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments surrounding a 34-year-old law on computer hacking — examining how the terms of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act mean everyday activities like browsing Instagram on a work computer could be interpreted as a federal crime.”

Politico: Major shift at Supreme Court on Covid-19 orders

Politico: Major shift at Supreme Court on Covid-19 orders. “The Supreme Court signaled a major shift in its approach to coronavirus-related restrictions late Wednesday, voting 5-4 to bar New York state from reimposing limits on religious gatherings. The emergency rulings, issued just before midnight, were the first significant indication of a rightward shift in the court since President Donald Trump’s newest appointee — Justice Amy Coney Barrett — last month filled the seat occupied by liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in September.”

Covid-19: US Supreme Court backs religious groups over New York caps (BBC)

BBC: Covid-19: US Supreme Court backs religious groups over New York caps. “The US Supreme Court has temporarily blocked New York from enforcing attendance limits at places of worship in areas hit hard by coronavirus. In a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that the state’s congregational cap violated rights to religious freedom.”

NBC News: Supreme Court allows Trump administration to end census count early

NBC News: Supreme Court allows Trump administration to end census count early. “The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively allowed the government to stop the census count immediately, blocking a lower court order that would have required the Trump administration to continue gathering census information in the field until the end of October.”

Supreme Court takes on Google vs. Oracle: The biggest software development case ever (ZDNet)

ZDNet: Supreme Court takes on Google vs. Oracle: The biggest software development case ever. “Thanks to the coronavirus pandemic and other issues, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will finally hold oral arguments in Google v. Oracle on Oct. 7, 2020. This case will decide, without exaggeration, the future of software development and billions of dollars.”

Matt Stoller: Will Trump’s Supreme Court Destroy Trump’s Google Case?

Matt Stoller: Will Trump’s Supreme Court Destroy Trump’s Google Case?. “While Obama didn’t do much to address monopoly power, towards the end of his administration the Democratic establishment started shifting towards a more skeptical posture towards corporate concentration. Elizabeth Warren launched the first mainstream attack on Google as a monopoly in 2016. She was pushed back by critics as seeking to upend antitrust law to incorporate social goals, for being a radical left-winger, for hipster antitrust, whatever. But it should be clear by now that Warren has won the debate. If [Senator Mike] Lee is on board, then nearly everyone in Congress is on board.”

The Hill: Trump asks Supreme Court to let him block critics on Twitter

The Hill: Trump asks Supreme Court to let him block critics on Twitter. “The Trump administration on [August 20] asked the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court ruling that found President Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking his critics on Twitter. The lawsuit arose in 2017 after Trump’s social media account blocked seven people who had tweeted criticism of the president in comment threads linked to his @realDonaldTrump Twitter handle.”

CNET: Supreme Court strikes debt-collector exception for robocall ban

CNET: Supreme Court strikes debt-collector exception for robocall ban. “The US Supreme Court on Monday struck down an exception in federal law that allowed debt collectors to use robocalls to automatically dial cellphones. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits robocalls made to cell phones without a user’s consent. But in 2015, Congress added an exception in the law that allowed debt collectors, who were seeking to recover money owed to the US government or debts guaranteed by the government, to use automated dialers or robocallers to make calls in the hopes of recovering some of the money owed.”

Slate: Roberts Upholds COVID-19 Restrictions on Churches, Scolds Kavanaugh

Slate: Roberts Upholds COVID-19 Restrictions on Churches, Scolds Kavanaugh. “Friday at midnight, the Supreme Court rejected a church’s challenge to California’s COVID-19 restrictions by a 5–4 vote, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberals. In a pointed opinion, Roberts indicated that he will not join conservative judges’ escalating efforts to override public health measures in the name of religious freedom. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent, by contrast, falsely accused the state of religious discrimination in an extremely misleading opinion that omits the most important facts of the case. Roberts went out of his way to scold Kavanaugh’s dishonest vilification of the state.”

Courthouse News Service: Coronavirus Controls Bring Live Audio Finally to Supreme Court

Courthouse News Service: Coronavirus Controls Bring Live Audio Finally to Supreme Court. “In response to the coronavirus pandemic, the court had delayed two rounds of arguments set for the end of March and April, pushing off some of the most highly anticipated and politically consequential arguments of its term. In the meantime, the court has held remote conferences on Fridays and continued releasing opinions and orders lists while the justices and most court staff works remotely.”

PR Newswire: Sandra Day O’Connor Digital Library Launched (PRESS RELEASE)

PR Newswire: Sandra Day O’Connor Digital Library Launched (PRESS RELEASE). “The Sandra Day O’Connor Institute today launched its comprehensive Digital Library which catalogs the life and work of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court. For the first time, Justice O’Connor’s body of work across her decades in public service is available in an easily accessible, searchable format.”

Mashable: This Supreme Court case could criminalize online immigration activism. Here’s why.

Mashable: This Supreme Court case could criminalize online immigration activism. Here’s why.. “The case, U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith, originates from a federal district court in California where a federal grand jury convicted immigration consultant Evelyn Sineneng-Smith for fraud after she told her undocumented clients they could maintain legal status under a program she knew had expired. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did little to overturn that conviction. What it did overturn, however, was a separate conviction that found Sineneng-Smith guilty under a 1986 federal law that makes it a crime to ‘encourage’ and ‘induce’ known undocumented immigrants to reside in the U.S. And it did so on First Amendment grounds.”