Professor Ben Gershman discussed this week’s Supreme Court ruling on warrantless GPS tracking with a reporter from Wired.com. Monday’s ruling held that police could not track a suspect’s car using a mounted GPS device...
Tagged: Supreme Court
Pace Law School Professor Bennett Gershman, an expert on criminal procedure and ethics, is available to speak to the press about the Supreme Court decision in US v. Jones.
“The unanimous GPS decision is a huge victory for constitutional protection of privacy. The Supreme Court got it right, although for different reasons, and the effect of this decision on other intrusive kinds of technology that do not encroach into a person’s private property is unclear. However, it appears that five Justices (Alito, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor) would go further than the Scalia group and require police investigators to obtain a search warrant if they want to use technology to secretly intrude into a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy, even if that intrusion does not involve a trespass onto a person’s private property as was the case in Jones.”
Prof. Emily Waldman comments on SCOTUS declining to hear appeal from Bronx church regarding worship in NYC schools
The New York Daily News turned to Prof. Emily Waldman this week for a story about the Supreme Court refusing to hear an appeal from the Bronx Household of Faith church, which is fighting...
Prof. Bennett Gershman on HuffPost: “Big Brother” is Really Watching You–GPS Surveillance in the Supreme Court
In his latest blog entry on the Huffington Post, Prof. Bennett Gershman writes about what he calls “one of the most important privacy cases in decades,” United States v. Jones, which is being argued...
Pace Law School Prof. Emily Waldman, an expert on employment law, is available to speak to the media about Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC, which will be argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
“Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC is a major–and fascinating–First Amendment case. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the threshold legal question here: whether courts should recognize a ‘ministerial exception’ to employment discrimination laws. Although employment discrimination laws generally allow religious institutions to discrimination on the basis of religion, they do not say anything about their ability to discriminate on the basis other protected characteristics like race, gender, or disability. Starting in the 1970s, though, the federal courts began to recognize a broader ‘ministerial exception,’ grounded in the Establishment Clause and/or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, whereby religious institutions are free to make all employment decisions with regard to their clergy. Today, 12 federal appeals courts and numerous state supreme courts agree that some sort of ministerial exception should exist. But there isn’t consensus as to the exception’s reach.
That’s where this case comes in. The plaintiff, Cheryl Perich, is a parochial school teacher who taught secular subjects to elementary school students, but also had some religious duties, like leading her class in prayer and teaching a religious class. She claims that she was fired after complaining about discriminatory treatment on the basis of her disability, in violation of the ADA. In ruling on her case, the Supreme Court will have to decide whether the ministerial exception should exist at all, and if so, whether and how it covers employees who perform a mix of secular and religious functions. While it is very likely that the Court will recognize the ministerial exception, the question of whether it should cover Ms. Perich is a much closer one. At tomorrow’s arguments, the church is likely to emphasize the religious aspects of Ms. Perich’s position, while Ms. Perich will probably argue that most of her day was spent teaching secular subjects and that her disability retaliation claim won’t implicate questions of religious doctrine.”
Pace Law School Professor Bennett Gershman, an expert on criminal procedure and ethics, is available to speak to the press about Howes v. Fields, which will be argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
“The Miranda decision once again is before the Court, this time in the context of an interrogation of a prison inmate by police deputies who did not first warn the defendant of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, and after which he confessed to having sex with a child. This confession was used to convict him, and he was sentenced to prison for up to fifteen years.
The Court in another case decided last term involving Miranda custody (JDB v. North Carolina) held that a minor’s age should properly be considered in determining whether he was in custody. The defendant in the present case — Howes v. Field — was isolated from the general prison population and questioned by police for 7 hours before he confessed. Although some lower courts have held that the mere fact that a person being questioned is a jailhouse inmate does not necessarily trigger Miranda warnings, as long as the confinement is de minimis, or there is some nexus between the questioning and his confinement. But in the present case, the very long duration of interrogation, the fact that the defendant was isolated from the prison population, and the fact that there was no nexus between his confinement and the subject matter of the interrogation suggest that the Court will find that the failure to advise him of his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney violates Miranda and will doom his conviction.”
Pace Law School Professor Linda Fentiman is available to speak to the media about Douglas v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, which will be argued before the Supreme Court on Monday.
“The case has important implications for states as they try to control spiraling health care costs under the federal-state partnership that is Medicaid. The case is also likely to have political ramifications for the Department of Health and Human Services as it is ramping up to implement the Affordable Care Act, which raises issues about whether the internal administrative remedies for resolving disputes about Medicaid payment should be exclusive, taking place outside of federal courts.
This case turns on who can challenge the adequacy of payments to healthcare providers under Medicaid. It began when a coalition of healthcare providers and patients who receive healthcare through Medicaid sued California to prevent it from implementing major budget cuts to Medicaid (called Medi-Cal in California) due to its financial crisis. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has said these suits can go forward, and has enjoined California from making the budget cuts. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari…”
Prof. Emily Waldman quoted in the Wall Street Journal about a church asking the Supreme Court to assert its right to hold religious servicse in public schools
Prof. Emily Waldman spoke to the Wall Street Journal about the Bronx Household of Faith, an evangelical congregation which filed a petition Tuesday asking the Supreme Court to review a June appeals court ruling...