"Major Ruling Shields Privacy of Cellphones; Supreme Court Says Phones Can't Be Searched Without a Warrant":
Adam Liptak will have this article
in Thursday's edition of The New York Times. And John Schwartz will have an article headlined "Cellphone Ruling Could Alter Police Methods, Experts Say
In Thursday's edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined "Supreme Court says police must get warrants for most cellphone searches." And Craig Timberg has an article headlined "Supreme Court cellphone ruling hints at broader curbs on surveillance."
In Thursday's edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage will have an article headlined "Supreme Court rules police cannot search smartphones without warrant."
In Thursday's edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin will have an article headlined "Supreme Court: Police Need Warrants to Search Cellphone Data; Unanimous Supreme Court Says Privacy Interests Outweigh Police Convenience."
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that "Supreme Court limits police searches of cellphones."
Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that "Police need warrants to search smartphones, Supreme Court rules."
Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined "US Supreme Court to police: To search a cell phone, 'get a warrant.'"
Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that "Supreme Court bans warrantless cell phone searches, updates privacy laws; Major ruling updates privacy laws for 21st century."
At Politico.com, Josh Gerstein and Tal Kopan report that "SCOTUS rules warrants needed for cellphone search." In addition, Gerstein has an article headlined "SCOTUS cellphone ruling resonates in NSA fight."
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that "U.S. Supreme Court's milestone ruling protects cellphone privacy."
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that "Police Need Warrant to Search Cell Phones, Top Court Says."
On this evening's broadcast of NPR's "All Things Considered," Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled "High Court Ruling On Search Warrants Is Broader Than Cellphones."
At "The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times," Mike Scarcella has a post titled "Justices Endorse Privacy in Cellphone Search Cases."
And at "SCOTUSblog," Lyle Denniston has a post titled "Opinion analysis: Broad cloak of privacy for cellphones."
"Oklahoma death row inmates seek to halt executions":
The Associated Press has this report
"The Supreme Court Justices Have Cellphones, Too; The Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Cellphone Privacy":
Linda Greenhouse has this essay
online at The New York Times.
Access online this year's installment of Slate's "Supreme Court Breakfast Table":
Dahlia Lithwick started the discussion this morning with a post titled "Is this the most pro-First Amendment court ever?
Walter Dellinger followed with a post titled "A retirement decision is not a judicial act."
Next, Laurence H. Tribe has a post titled "Closing off one avenue of civil rights relief after another."
Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner's first post in the discussion is titled "Does Chief Justice John Roberts show a certain casualness about the truth?"
Judge Posner's son, Eric Posner, has a post titled "How exactly does this court know how significant the privacy interest is?"
Dahlia Lithwick's second post is titled "In the cellphone cases, the justices prove they are not Luddites."
Walter Dellinger's second post is titled "The court may no longer be the head cheerleader for the war on drugs."
And Emily Bazelon's first post, which is currently the most recent of all the posts, is titled "Scalia and Breyer battle it out to see who is the least clueless grandpa."
"10th Circuit Court upholds same-sex marriage; State of Utah will ruling appeal to U.S. Supreme Court":
The Salt Lake Tribune has this news update
The Deseret News has an update headlined "Federal appeals court rules against Utah's same-sex marriage ban."
The New York Times has a news update headlined "Utah Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down by Federal Appeals Court."
Chris Casteel of The Oklahoman has a news update headlined "10th Circuit Court Says States Can't Ban Gay Marriage."
The Associated Press has a report headlined "Appeals court: States can't ban gay marriage."
Bloomberg News reports that "Utah Gay-Marriage Ban Rejected in Appeals Court First."
Reuters reports that "U.S. courts back gay marriage in Utah, Indiana."
And at "SCOTUSblog," Lyle Denniston has a post titled "Utah ban on same-sex marriage nullified."
You can access today's ruling of a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit at this link.
Access online today's rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases:
The Court today issued rulings in four argued cases.
1. Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, No. 12-751. You can access the oral argument via this link.
2. Justice Breyer also delivered the opinion of the Court in American Broadcasting Co. v. Aereo, Inc., No. 13-461. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
3 & 4. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Riley v. California, No.13-132, and United States v. Wurie, No. 13-212. Justice Alito issued an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. You can access the oral arguments here and here, respectively.
In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that "Justice limit cellphone searches after arrests"; "Justices rule for broadcasters in fight with Aereo" and "Court sides with employees in retirement fund case."
"U.S. high court bucks pro-business trend this term":
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report
"Why The Supreme Court's Decision in Halliburton Is Bad News For Investors And The Public":
Andrew J. Pincus has this post
at Mayer Brown's "Class Defense" blog.
"For same-sex marriage pioneer, a very busy year":
Richard Wolf has this front page article
in today's edition of USA Today.