Newark Mayor Cory Booker took a big step on Tuesday night to becoming the highest-profile Democrat in the U.S. Senate; also, a look at Justice Anthony Kennedy’s remarks on the legal profession.
In this commentary, National Constitution Center CEO Jeffrey Rosen looks at the language the Obama administration uses about its spying programs, and why we really need to see the legal memos justifying such actions to fully understand them.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Judge Shira A. Sheindlin don’t agree on the city’s former policy about searching people on the street in a “Terry stop.” Here’s an explanation of what a Terry Stop is, and a look at Sheindlin’s decision against the city, which Bloomberg says he will appeal.
Nancy Hoppock from the New York University School of Law, who spent 19 years as a prosecutor, explains the real-life implications of Eric Holder’s decision to reduce the use of mandatory minimum sentences in federal drug cases.
Lyle Denniston looks at how national Republican chairman Reince Priebus could affect the public discourse over the 2016 presidential election by exercising a First Amendment right.
There’s more analysis of Monday’s court ruling on New York’s stop-and-frisk policy; a look at proposed conduct rules for the Supreme Court; and the strangest moment in politician Anthony Weiner’s campaign.
Jonathan Hafetz from Seton Hall Law School, in a commentary, says the NSA’s surveillance programs undermine Fourth Amendment protections and they could affect the conduct of ordinary citizens.
U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled on Monday that the New York City police department has violated the Constitution in how it implements a stop-and-frisk policy that targets certain groups of citizens.
Attorney General Eric Holder wants to change how some nonviolent drug offenders are sentenced in federal cases; the city of New York has lost a key ruling about its stop-and-frisk policy.
In this commentary, Clark Neily from the Institute For Justice argues that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is off base in his claims that judges who want an active role in protecting individual liberty are authoritarian arbiters of morality.