It seems to happen all the time – people become addicted to their cell phones. From Blackberries to iPhones to the Droid, smartphones have given us a way to instantly connect to the world from the palm of our hand. Used to sharing personal messages, work related emails or even funny Youtube videos, the line between your social life and work responsibilities on your phone can become easily blurred. Most people are very protective of their personal cell phone, but what if your phone was issued to you from your employer? Do your rights change in terms of your privacy?

The Supreme Court was asked just that last month in the case of Ontario, California v. Quon, after a supervisors reviewed personal messages on a police officer’s department issued pager. As it turns out, the officer, Sgt. Jeff Quon was using the pager to send sexually explicit messages despite warnings that messages may be monitored. Still, Quon argued the searches were illegal and violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

How would you rule on this case? Even though the phone was issued by a governmental agency, should a phone or pager be protected under Fourth Amendment rights because of an individual’s daily use? Or should people know not to send private messages in the first place?

The Supreme Court ruled against Quon and established a new legal standard for these kinds of privacy cases – when government employees are issued interactive communication devices, and they are told ahead of time they will be monitored, the government agency can look into employees’ communication log without violating their constitutional rights.

Many see this ruling also extending into private sector jobs. Other than the fact that they are not government workers, as long as employees are notified that their messages may be monitored, this ruling could extend to private companies as well. Since private employers can easily set their own policies, most could easily put this rule into effect.

So you might want to think twice next time before sending a personal message on your company phone. Before you hit send, is it something you would really like your boss to see? You might want to even think about getting a second phone; we all know it’s a slippery slope once you start mixing business with pleasure.

Published by Rachel on July 21, 2010 at 3:57pm.

With the Arizona immigration law set to go into effect July 29, many people are still confused and divided about the issue that has been making headlines for months. Some have called the new law mandated racial profiling, while others have praised the state for stepping forward in a time of much needed immigration reform. Add a federal lawsuit to the mix and you have one very hot political topic. But does the law have any standing when faced against the federal government?

The law requires Arizona police officers to question a person’s citizenship if they suspect that person is here illegally. The law also requires legal immigrants to carry their papers or documentation proving they are in fact U.S. citizens. Although there are arguable human right issues being violated here involving civil rights and racial profiling, the White House is focusing on other arguments to strike the measure down.

So what main arguments will the federal government use in their case against Arizona? Does a state even have a right to create and enforce such a law or does that power reside solely in the federal government? The government hopes to address this question with a focus on constitutional concerns regarding the balance of power between states and the federal government. Generally the preemption argument is that federal law trumps state law. After all, it was the framers who said that Federal law “shall be the supreme law of the land.” But despite the precedent of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, the federal lawsuit is not a sure winner in this controversial topic.

In fact, two previous cases seem to support Arizona’s position on immigration enforcement policies. The Supreme Court case Muehler v. Mena ruled that police do not need any specific reason such as probable cause to ask an individual about their immigration status. The ruling has already taken effect in the state Rhode Island where procedures similar to those in the Arizona law are already taking place (Estrada v. Rhode Island). So why isn’t the federal government suing the state of Rhode Island?  Has a lack of national attention simply overlooked Rhode Island?

Whether the final decision in the lawsuit comes down to the Supremacy Clause or reflects a similar ruling to that of Muehler v. Mena, the country itself still seems undecided on the issue. A recent CBS News poll says that 57 percent of Americans think the Arizona Immigration law is “about right” in addressing illegal immigration while the other 43 percent don’t agree or are not sure. Where do you stand on the issue? Do you think the Federal government is right in their approach to try and strike down Arizona’s law? What is your take on the human right issues at hand?

Posted by Rachel on July 19, 2010 at 4:03pm.

It doesn’t feel very good to be excluded from anything – be it not getting picked for a sport team or not being included in a selective club or organization, rejection hurts. But what about when that rejection is not a reflection of your abilities or talents but because of discrimination? Such is the case in a recent Supreme Court decision about a Christian student group who excluded homosexuals and nonbelievers from voting or holding leadership positions within the club. Some say the case puts anti-discrimination principles up against religious freedom. Where do you stand in the case?

As part of Hastings College of Law within the University of California, the Christian Legal Society (CLS) did not follow school policy that forbids discrimination on grounds of religion and sexual orientation. Compliance of these rules is required of all recognized student groups to receive funding from the school. After the CLS refused to follow the rules, the school of law withdrew its association from the club and shortly after the groups went to court.

Christian Legal Society v. Martinez went all the way to the Supreme Court where in a 5-4 ruling, the court decided that the law school can legally deny recognition and funding to the Christian student group. Justice John Paul Stevens said that while the Constitution “may protect CLS’s discriminatory practices off campus, it does not require a public university to validate or support them.”

I found myself agreeing with Justice Stevens. Since the law school had a clear policy against discrimination, they have every right to deny recognition to a group that breaks the rules. It’s important to remember the difference between banning a group and denying them funding. The group still has the right to exist – just not under the college’s name or while using their money. It would actually violate the school’s freedom of speech if they were forced to recognize and financially support something they didn’t believe in and set clear policies to avoid.

Still others argued to the Court that U.S. Constitution does not allow a school to deny a group which insists its members agree with its core views as a part of religious freedom. Where do your beliefs fall?

Posted by Rachel on July 15, 2010 at 11:55am.

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.”

Even if you’re not a self-proclaimed Cops TV show junkie, you can still probably recite this saying nearly word for word. And for just as long as kids have been playing cops and robbers, most have interpreted the Fifth Amendment just as it says– the right not to talk when questioned. But after a new Supreme Court ruling, you actually have to speak up in order to invoke your right.

In a 5-4 decision, The Supreme Court ruled that simply not talking wasn’t enough under the Miranda Rights to stop police questioning all together. Instead, to stop an interrogation, suspects must now talk – and tell police that they wish to stay silent. The ruling is not without controversy.  Many people seem to be worried about the new decision’s confusing and contradicting message. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who voted against the majority, said the decision turned defendant’s rights “upside down.”

The decision earlier this month came from a case involving a suspect named Van Chester Thompkins, who attempted to remain silent for nearly three hours while police questioned him. Eventually, the police got him to start answering yes and no questions, which convicted him of a murder in 2001. Thompkins then went on to try and repeal the conviction, saying he invoked his Miranda Rights by being uncommunicative with police.

In the case of Berghuis v. Thompkins, the Supreme Court’s decision sided with police investigators. Since Thompkins never verbally said he wanted to remain silent or not talk to police, questioning was continued even after he was uncooperative in answering. If at any time he verbalized his wishes not to speak, he would have invoked his “right to cut off questioning.”

This new ruling under the Miranda rights leaves many questions for police interrogators and suspects alike. While police now have more freedom in questioning suspects, how far is too far? Could incorrect or false convictions come out of questioning someone for too long or with too much intensity if the suspect is not aware of the change in their rights? Does this decision really stand true under the Miranda rights and the process of a fair trial?

Staying silent won’t get you anywhere. Speak up. What do you think?

Posted by Rachel on June 24, 2010 at 6:20pm.

Think back to when you were seventeen. There’s no need to admit real ages here, but most people’s biggest issues probably had something to do with buying a car, finding a date to prom or covering up a dreaded pimple on senior picture day. Even today, most teens only use the words “cruel and unusual” to describe one another’s particularly odd fashion sense or seemingly bad attitude – not when talking about prison sentences.

But imagine for a moment your seventeen-year-old self facing a life sentence in prison without any hope of release.  Sure, you probably haven’t made the best life choices up to this point, but could you even begin to understand such severe consequences at that young age?

Terrance Graham didn’t have to imagine what it would be like. He was sentenced to life without parole for robberies committed when he was 16 and 17 years old. But is such a sentence constitutional?

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court considered that question. They were asked if juveniles, such as Graham, who commit crimes not involving murder could be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. In a historic decision, six justices ruled that such a sentence was considered cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment.

The decision of Graham v. Florida comes a long way from the 18^th century, when courts were able to use capital punishment on children as young as seven.

One of the Supreme Court’s first decisions regarding cruel and unusual punishments was to prohibit drawing and quartering, dissection and burning alive in 1878 with Wilkerson v. Utah. Those with weak stomachs and low pain tolerances were forever grateful.

Later on throughout the 20th century, the Court focused on prohibiting sentences for certain crimes. They found punishments such as “hard and painful labor”, revoking a natural-born person’s citizenship, and requiring jail time for an addiction to narcotics all to be unconstitutional in specific cases.

However, throughout history, the length of a prison sentence itself was not questioned under the Eighth Amendment until 1983 in Solem v. Helm. This was the first case in which incarceration, standing alone, could constitute cruel and unusual punishment if the time didn’t fit the crime. In that specific case, the Court found that cashing a $100 dollar check on a closed account didn’t merit life in prison. Everyone with an occasionally mismanaged checking account found themselves breathing a little easier.

8th Amendment law continued to evolve in 2005 with Roper v. Simmons when the Court ruled that defendants under 18 couldn’t be executed. With execution just one step away from life imprisonment without parole, the case of Graham v. Florida was next in the progression of Eighth Amendment cases involving minors.

This brief history of Supreme Court cases involving the Eighth Amendment seems to travel in a logical expansion of recognizing human rights. From banning torture to limiting extreme punishments that don’t fit the crime, the Court’s decision in Graham v. Florida seems like the next logical step in societal progress after banning execution for minors.

In the decision, Justice Stevens wrote, “Knowledge accumulates. We learn sometimes, from our mistakes.” His comment can be applied to the Court’s learning process leading up to the decision as well as the second chance many juveniles now have to receive the possibility of parole with their life sentences. In both cases, it’s a step in the right direction.

Posted by Rachel on June 3, 2010 at 12:02pm.

In a landmark decision with far-reaching consequences, a sharply divided Supreme Court last week struck down restrictions on campaign spending by corporations and unions, freeing them to spend a limitless amount to support or oppose a political candidate.  The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, reverses two prior Supreme Court precedents as well as overturns key aspects of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), also known as the McCain-Feingold Act.

The underlying case arose from a 2008 movie produced by the appellant, Citizens United, which was harshly critical of then candidate Hillary Clinton. Citizens United and ‘Hillary: The Movie’ were financed by both individuals and corporations. Because the movie, titled ‘Hillary: The Movie’, advocated the defeat of Clinton, the Federal Election Commission barred any ads promoting it during the 2008 election season as well as broadcasts on cable video on demand. It cited restrictions on political ads financed by corporations as well as a provision in the BCRA that prohibits “electioneering communications” paid for by corporations 30 days before a presidential primary. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia sided with the FEC and ruled that Citizens United could not air any ads promoting the movie before the Democratic primaries.

The Supreme Court overturned the District Court and ruled that the BCRA’s restrictions on corporate funding of political broadcasts violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. In so doing, the Court completely overruled a prior Supreme Court decision, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 case which upheld Michigan’s prohibition against corporations using treasury money to support or oppose political candidates. The Court also partially overruled another prior decision, McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 case which upheld the BCRA’s clause that restricts “electioneering communications” funded by corporate money 30 days before a presidential primary or 60 days before a general election.

Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority joined by Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, wrote that “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” He further wrote that “When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought.” He added, “The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

There seem to be two underlying principles guiding the majority’s reasoning in this case:

1. First, that money equals speech. This doctrine was first promulgated by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, a 1975 case where the Court struck down limitations on campaign expenditures, on independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and on expenditures by a candidate from his or her personal funds. The Buckley Court reasoned that such expenditures were a form of constitutionally protected speech that could not be restricted.
2. Second, that corporations have the same constitutional rights as people. This is not a new notion and the debate about “corporate personhood” has indeed been a long standing one. Of course, we all know that corporations are comprised of individuals that have constitutional rights, but the Court for the first time concludes that a corporation itself has a constitutional right to free speech when it comes to elections.

Coupling the two principles noted above, the Court ruled that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals and can therefore spend an unlimited amount of money to advocate for or against a political candidate. It should be noted, however, that corporate and individual contributions made directly to a candidate can still be restricted.

As evidenced by the widespread media coverage this ruling has received, the implications of it are profound. Corporations, as well as unions, can now spend an unrestricted amount to support or oppose any candidate they view as favorable or unfavorable to their agenda. Since corporations have more money and resources than unions, many fear a corporate takeover of political debate in this country. Indeed, Justice Stevens in a dissent joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, wrote that “In a democratic society, the long-standing consensus on the need to limit corporate campaign spending should outweigh the wooden applications of judge-made rules” and that the ruling “threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.”

Because corporate money has for the most part favored Republicans, the response to this ruling along party lines has been predictable, with President Obama and most Democrats blasting the ruling while most Republicans praising it as a victory for free speech. (Watch President Obama criticizing the decision in the State of the Union address last night as well as Justice Alito’s reaction.) The Supreme Court itself was divided starkly between its conservative and liberal wings. (Former Justice O’Conner, the primary swing vote before retiring, has implied that she would have dissented, which would have resulted in an upholding of the prior restrictions.) In an interesting role reversal, many liberals are accusing the conservative wing of judicial activism, and hypocrisy, since a literal interpretation of the Constitution would not preclude the restrictions on corporate funding of political speech as the Constitution never expressly addressed money in relation to politics.

A couple of interesting things to watch now will be whether Congress attempts to enact laws that would make corporate or union expenditures on political advocacy subject to a shareholder or member vote. Also, the ruling potentially opens up foreign corporations trying to influence American political debate through their U.S.-based subsidiaries. Some are now even calling for a Constitutional amendment to circumvent the Supreme Court decision.

The ruling is already affecting the political calculus of campaigns for midterm elections later this year and will undoubtedly have an even deeper impact on the 2012 and future elections. Many fear that this ruling will affect the policy positions of candidates who desire or fear political cash being used on their behalf or in opposition to them.  In any event, what is certain is that both sides will flood the airwaves with broadcast “electioneering communications” and that information and misinformation will become even more pervasive and come from more sources than ever before.

Your thoughts?

Posted by Anish on January 28, 2010 at 2:52pm.