On Wednesday, June 5, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Washington State police officers lacked reasonable suspicion to arrest Daniel Brown after the police received an anonymous report of a black man possessing a gun in Washington, a concealed-carry state. After the police received the anonymous report, the police saw Brown, activated their police lights, and then pursued him going the opposite direction down a one-way street. Brown ran for about a block before being arrested at gunpoint. Police found a gun in Brown's waistband, prompting a further search finding drugs and cash. The Ninth Circuit found that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity when they stopped and frisked Brown and, thus, granted Brown's motion to suppress the evidence of drugs and cash. Read More.
Featured Story
Recently Featured Dockets
Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. et al v. Mack (filed 5/29/19)
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
A lawsuit filed by an organization that advocates for the separation of church and states against a Texas justice of the peace who invites chaplains to hold prayer service in the courtroom before calling the cases to be heard for the day.
Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. et al v. Bernhardt et al (filed 5/23/19)
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
The Center for Biological Diversity and San Francisco Baykeeper filed this lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging that it is failing to protect several "highly imperiled" species of animals across the country, in violation of the the Endangered Species Act.
State of New York et al v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al (filed 5/21/19)
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
A federal lawsuit filed by several states challenging the "conscience" rule, which allows health care providers, insurers and employers to refuse to pay or provide health care services based on "conscience".
Connecticut et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (filed 5/10/19)
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
A lawsuit filed by 44 states against 20 leading drug companies alleging price fixing of certain generic drugs.
Ray et al v. T-Mobile US, Inc. (filed 5/2/19)
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant T-Mobile US, Inc. sold the geolocation data collected from its customers' cell phones to third-party data aggregators in violation of the Federal Communications Act and its own Privacy Policy and Code of Business Conduct.
Morrison v. Verizon Communications Inc. et al (filed 5/2/19)
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Morrison v. AT&T Mobility, LLC (filed 4/29/19)
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Other Legal News
Supreme Court Won’t Rule on Clash Between Another Bakery and a Gay Couple
The New York Times, June 17, 2019
The Supreme Court again avoided deciding whether the Constitution allows people with religious objections to same-sex marriage to discriminate.
Trump’s Abuse of Executive Privilege Is More Than a Present Danger
The New York Times, June 17, 2019
He’s probably making it harder for future presidents to govern.
Opinion analysis: Court carves out narrow role for state law on the outer continental shelf
SCOTUSblog, June 11, 2019
In a broad, unanimous and unsurprising decision, the Supreme Court yesterday held that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act only incorporates state law when federal law’s silence on a particular issue creates a “gap” for state law to fill. The decision is a defeat for Brian Newton, a former employee of Parker Drilling Service, Ltd.,…
Ginsburg Hints at Sharp Divisions Ahead as Supreme Court Term Nears End
The New York Times, June 10, 2019
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in remarks at a conference that included references to the census and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, gave liberals little reason to be optimistic.
Does the Constitution Require the Insanity Defense?
Justia's Verdict, June 5, 2019
Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb discusses a question the U.S. Supreme Court will consider next term—whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits a state’s abolition of the insanity defense. Colb points out the various ways in which our current criminal justice system arbitrarily excuses some sources of criminal conduct but not others, and she argues that because of these inconsistencies already inherent in the system, the insanity defense cannot logically be required.
Revisions to the Rules of the Court
Supreme Court of the United States, April 18, 2019
The Supreme Court of the United States has adopted a revised version of the Rules of the Court. The new Rules will take effect on July 1, 2019. The revisions to the Rules include substantive changes to Rules 14.1(b), 15.2, 25.3, 29.1, 29.2 and 33.1(g). Changes to Rules 14.1(b) and 15.2 require parties to identify any trial and appellate court cases that are directly related to the case in this Court. This provision is designed to assist the Justices in determining whether their...
