Posts

Federal Court of Appeals: Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking OK

/1 Comment/in , /by

Photo Credit: Wang Zhao/Agence France-Presse – Getty Images
In a significant victory for law enforcement, a federal appeals court on Tuesday said that government authorities could extract historical location data directly from telecommunications carriers without a search warrant.

The closely watched case, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, is the first ruling that squarely addresses the constitutionality of warrantless searches of historical location data stored by cellphone service providers. Ruling 2 to 1, the court said a warrantless search was “not per se unconstitutional” because location data was “clearly a business record” and therefore not protected by the Fourth Amendment.

The ruling is likely to intensify legislative efforts, already bubbling in Congress and in the states, to consider measures to require warrants based on probable cause to obtain cellphone location data.

The appeals court ruling sharply contrasts with a New Jersey State Supreme Court opinion in mid-July that said the police required a warrant to track a suspect’s whereabouts in real time. That decision relied on the New Jersey Constitution, whereas the ruling Tuesday in the Fifth Circuit was made on the basis of the federal Constitution.

The Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on whether cellphone location data is protected by the Constitution. The case, which was initially brought in Texas, is not expected to go to the Supreme Court because it is “ex parte,” or filed by only one party — in this case, the government.

Read more from this story HERE.

Begich and Murkowski’s Support for Obama’s Radical Anti-Gun Appellate Court Nominee Ends in Defeat

/0 Comments/in , /by

Yesterday, the Obama Administration admitted defeat in withdrawing its left-wing nominee, Caitlin Halligan, for the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. Republicans successfully filibustered the nomination, pointing out that Halligan had argued as New York’s solicitor general that firearms manufacturers should be held liable for violent crimes committed with their guns.

The National Rifle Association vigorously opposed Halligan’s nomination. Curiously, the NRA’s darling in the senate, Lisa Murkowski, was the only Republican to support Obama’s nominee. All other Republicans joined the filibuster effort. Begich, of course, joined with the other gun control advocates in the Senate.

Halligan isn’t just known as an anti-gunner, she also is marked by her pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, open border, radical environmental, and affirmative action views.

Of course, this isn’t the first time that Alaska’s senior senator has backed a leftist judge. Last February, Murkowski joined with other RINO’s and Begich to confirm Jesse Furman to the Federal Court of Appeals. Furman infamously blamed America’s violence on its “fascination with guns.”

The first test of how Alaskans will embrace the anti-gun votes of their elected federal officials will come in 2014 with Mark Begich’s reelection efforts. But Murkowski will face the same test just two years later. Both should be sent packing.

Federal Court Strikes Down Defense of Marriage Act, Says Homosexuals are a Protected Class

/3 Comments/in , /by

A federal appeals court on Thursday ruled that gay Americans are a class of people who deserve the same kinds of constitutional protections as many other victims of discrimination.

The 2-to-1 ruling, by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, came as the panel struck down the federal law prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriage. It is the first time that a federal appeals court has applied this level of constitutional protection — known as heightened scrutiny — to those unions. The case is now considered by some legal scholars to be the leading candidate for a Supreme Court review of the same-sex marriage issue.

Thursday’s decision was the second by a federal appeals court striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. Now the case, Windsor v. United States, could be considered by the Supreme Court, or the court could choose other cases in its pipeline concerning same-sex marriage. Those include an earlier decision on the act by the First Circuit in Boston and one from the Ninth Circuit overturning California’s ban on same-sex marriage. It could also decide to hear all of them.

“It’s an incredible moment in the struggle for gay rights in this country,” said James D. Esseks, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s project dealing with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues.

The new case was brought on behalf of Edith Windsor of New York City, who married her longtime partner, Thea Clara Spyer, in 2007 in Canada. When Ms. Spyer died in 2009, Ms. Windsor inherited her property. Because the Internal Revenue Service was not allowed, under the Defense of Marriage Act, to consider her a surviving spouse, she faced a tax bill of $363,053 that she would not have had to pay if the marriage had been recognized.

Read more from this story HERE.

Federal Court of Appeals: Texas can cut off funding for Planned Parenthood

/0 Comments/in /by

Photo credit: rcbodden

Texas officials are vowing to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood after a federal court sided with the state in a challenge over a new law that bans clinics affiliated with abortion providers from getting money through a health program for low-income women.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans late Tuesday reversed a federal judge’s temporary injunction that was allowing the funding to continue pending an October trial on Planned Parenthood’s challenge to the law.

State officials are seeking to halt money to Planned Parenthood clinics that provide family planning and health services as part of the state’s Women’s Health Program because the Republican-led Texas Legislature passed a law banning funds to organizations linked to abortion providers.

Planned Parenthood provides services like cancer screenings – but not abortions – to about half of the 130,000 low-income Texas women enrolled in the program, which is designed to provide services to women who might not otherwise qualify for Medicaid.

The appeals court’s decision means Texas is now free to impose the ban.

Read more from this story HERE.