It was a busy Monday in the federal court system:

Border search of Muslims lawful, says appeals court

U.S. customs officers did not violate the constitutional rights of five Muslim U.S. citizens returning from Canada, who were detained at the border and subjected to invasive searches usually reserved for suspected terrorists, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Monday.

There's more:

'We agree with the District Court that the government has a compelling interest in protecting against terrorism,' the three-judge panel said in its decision.

Go figure.

* * *

Supreme Court declines review of warrantless welfare home visits

Courtesy of the AP (but heavily edited to avoid its agenda and poor reporting):

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to a Southern California County's practice of routinely examining welfare applicants' homes, without first obtaining warrants, in order to determine applicants are in fact eligible for government aid.

The High Court refused to review a 2-1 decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld the program. The appeals court ruled in favor of the county on the grounds (1) a 1971 Supreme Court precedent favored the constitutionality of the program, and (2) the 4th Amendment was not implicated because applicants are free to deny access to the county's investigators, although doing so disqualifies them from receiving welfare assistance from the county.

* * *

Supreme Court rejects death row DNA challenge

Affirming a decision by the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to allow an Alabama death row inmate to try to prove his putative innocence through DNA testing.

This AP article on the death row item is devoid of any obvious agenda. As they say, read the whole thing.

* * *

Supreme Court declines review of Michigan faith-based spending case

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to review a ruling by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld a state agency's decision to preclude a faith-based program for abused children from receiving taxpayer funding. The agency's decision was made on the stated grounds of religious indoctrination being part and parcel of the program's mission.

This article on that funding dispute is pretty decent -- especially by AP standards -- and is devoid of any obvious agenda. Read the whole thing.