« Dogs That Don't Bark | Main | Business News Update »

Law & Order

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.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (1)

Good decisions, all.<... (Below threshold)

Good decisions, all.

It's especially absurd that welfare recipients consider searches intended to confirm their eligibility to be unreasonable. They can always refuse the search and lose their benefits.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy