Justices Cite Free Speech in Animal Abuse Videos

Expect a fierce battle for liberal justice's replacement

(NEWSER) - What will John Paul Stevens’ retirement mean for the Supreme Court? Here are three early thoughts on what comes next:

• Expect the tea partiers to get extremely riled up over whoever President Obama nominates, writes Chris Good of the Atlantic . They have a “very strict (one could almost say fundamentalist)” take on the Constitution, and they’re itching for a post-health care fight.

Departure of senior liberal justice will shift the balance of power

(NEWSER) - John Paul Stevens will probably retire from the Supreme Court this summer, leaving an opening for President Obama to fill. In the broadest sense, Obama's pick will change little: The president will probably choose a justice who will side with the court's liberals. But the new face will not be a replacement for Stevens, who has been the senior liberal justice for 16 years and is a master of using his opinion-assignment authority to influence outcomes. More»

Slams Bush team, backs consumer protection in recent case

(NEWSER) - Clarence Thomas might be the Supreme Court’s rightmost justice, but he’s “never been shy about breaking with conventional wisdom,” writes David G. Savage in the Los Angeles Times. In the latest such instance, he upheld injured patients’ right to sue drug companies, arguing that “agency musings”—in this case from the Bush administration—shouldn’t override state laws to protect consumers. More»

Justices will hand down 26 of the most contentious opinions beginning today

(NEWSER) - The Supreme Court is poised to begin unveiling decisions today in some of the year's most heated cases, reports USA Today. As the term winds down, the 26 final opinions will be released on select days in June, and include clashes over Guantanamo detainees, DC's handgun ban, and the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. More»

Obama administration had argued that tracking cars didn't constitute a search

(NEWSER) - The Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that the government must obtain a warrant before secretly affixing a GPS tracking device to a suspect's car. The case stemmed from an incident in which the FBI placed a tracker on a DC drug dealer's car, with the Obama administration arguing that Americans don't have a right to privacy while moving in public, Wired explains. The administration told the justices that it could track their cars as well if it wanted. More»