Ohio law enforcement have been using facial recognition technology to match driver’s license photos and surveillance footage for months, without telling the public. Jeffrey Rosen, president of the National Constitution Center and professor at George Washington University Law School, describes the current law on surveillance and facial recognition technology.
It may be hard to believe, but just one month ago, the United States was a very different place to live. There were historic Supreme Court decisions out on affirmative action, voting rights and same-sex marriage, but there were also other decisions issued that some may have missed. Contributing their thoughts are Ron Christie, Republican political strategist, Farai Chideya, distinguished writer in residence at New York University’s Journalism Institute, and Jeffrey Rosen, professor of law at George Washington University, and President of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.
By the end of this month we could be living in a very different United States. That’s because decisions will be coming down in five landmark cases before the Supreme Court. At stake: affirmative action, voting rights, gene patenting, and same-sex marriage. Jeffrey Rosen, professor of law at George Washington University and President of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, explains the cultural significance of these historic cases.
There's a small group of men and women - "Deciders" - at big tech companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter who make decisions everyday about what offensive speech is pulled from their sites. The huge scale of those sites gives those Deciders enormous influence over the state of free speech on the web. Bob speaks with George Washington University Law professor Jeffrey Rosen, who wrote about the Deciders and their many decisions in The New Republic.
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: 45-square-miles of complex legal questions, where the Constitution may (or may not) apply, and where, as of Wednesday, May 1st, 100 of the 166 detainees are on hunger strike. Jeffrey Rosen, law professor at George Washington University and legal affairs editor at The New Republic, describes the legal complexities embodied in the detention and treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
The most important court in Washington, D.C. may just be the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The D.C. Circuit, as it's known, hears some of the most important federal cases. The Senate Judiciary Committee will begin hearings today on the nomination of Sri Srinivasan to the D.C. Circuit.
The Supreme Court begins its 2012-2012 term today, just months after announcing its decision on the Affordable Care Act. While the Court has announced only half of the cases it will hear over the next nine months, Jeffrey Rosen, professor of law at George Washington University, explains that the Justices already have a number of contentious issues on the calendar.
Jeffrey Rosen is a professor of law at The George Washington University, legal affairs editor of The New Republic, and author of The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries that Defined America. As the Supreme Court's session nears completion, Rosen looks at the decisions to be decided, including the Affordable Care Act and the Arizona immigration case.
Fresh off hearing oral arguments for and against President Obama’s health care overhaul, the Supreme Court is stepping back into the political spotlight. Today, the high court will consider the legality of Arizona’s tough crackdown on illegal immigrants. Jeffrey Rosen, professor of law at George Washington University, talks about the major legal implications of SCOTUS' coming ruling.
Public broadcasting doesn't have commercials. It has underwriting announcements — and few of them at that. But that's about to change, now that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the FCC violated the First Amendment when it blocked public broadcasters from airing political advertisements. Jeffrey Rosen, professor of Law at George Washington University, describes how the ruling could change the face of public radio and TV.
Yesterday Attorney General Eric Holder issued a memo, assuring the Supreme Court that President Obama respects the authority of the court to overturn federal laws they find unconstitutional. This memo came after Republican challengers to the Affordable Care Act accused the President of pressuring the Court during deliberations. We discuss the controversy with Jeffrey Rosen, Professor of Law at George Washington University, and Todd Zwillich, Takeaway Washington correspondent.
Yesterday was the second of three days of hearings in the Supreme Court's review of Obama’s Affordable Care Act. The session was devoted to one key question: Is Congress overstepping its Constitutional power by requiring nearly all Americans to carry health insurance? Jeffrey Rosen is back to break it all down for us, and to give us a preview of what will happen in today’s third and final day of hearings. Rosen is professor of law at George Washington University, and he’s been following the arguments closely. He joins us from Washington, D.C.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on the Affordable Care Act Monday through Wednesday this week. But to your average, non-legal-scholar, the arguments can be hard to follow, and the specifics of the Act itself can very confusing. A lot of Takeaway listeners have been writing in with their questions about the Act. Todd Zwillich, the Takeaway’s Washington correspondent, is here to answer some of them.
Taxes, penalties, and tax penalties. That sums up much of what was discussed at yesterday's Supreme Court hearing on the 2010 health care overhaul bill, also known as the Affordable Care Act. Today's hearing, in which the court will focus on the constitutionality of the health overhaul, promises to be much more exciting. We speak with Jeffrey Rosen, professor of law at George Washington University, and Monica Haymond, a legal assistant originally from California who's been sleeping outside the Supreme Court Building since Friday night, hoping to get into today’s hearing.
The Supreme Court will hear a challenge to President Obama’s healthcare law today, kicking off a three-day proceeding. The Affordable Care Act mandates an expansion of health insurance to 30 million more Americans within a decade, as well as for the ire it has roused in Republican lawmakers and citizens, alike. To look ahead to next three days of health care debate and discussion, Jeffrey Rosen, professor of law at George Washington University, joins us.
Using the 14th amendment as their basis, many courts have treated corporations as people. Usually these rulings are beneficial to corporations and their larger interests, such as in the Supreme Court decision that allows corporations to endorse candidates like individuals. However, a new case will determine whether or not a corporation can be convicted as an accomplice to a crime against humanity. In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, Royal Dutch Petroleum and its subsidiary, Shell, are accused of aiding an autocratic regime that brutalized minorities in an oil-rich region of Nigeria.
People go to great lengths to fabricate military service. For every real Navy SEAL the FBI estimates there are hundreds of impostors. Xavier Alvarez, for example is an impostor. Alvarez, once a member of a California water-district board, lied at a public meeting about being a war hero specifically that he was awarded the Medal of Honor. But his lies did more than make him an outcast. They made him a criminal.
On Monday the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that police violated the 4th amendment when they placed a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a suspect’s car and monitored its movements for 28 days. In his opinion on the case, Justice Anthony Scalia wrote that the use of GPS constituted a "search" and therefore requires a warrant. This ruling may have an impact on other cases where GPS was used, as well as other types of surveillance mechanisms.
In a unanimous decision on Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that churches and religious organizations are exempt from employee discrimination laws when hiring or firing their own employees and leaders. Many are heralding this decision as key in reinforcing the separation between church and state, while others worry that this will allow these organizations far too much power. The initial complaint that motivated Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission stemmed from a teacher at an elementary school who felt she was being fired for pursuing a disability claim.
On Friday, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to hear Bluman v. the Federal Election Commission. This case specifically challenges the Federal Election Campaign Act, which "prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly." The law is broad enough to disallow those lawfully living in the U.S. from distributing re-election materials. Using a First Amendment challenge, the case raises questions about the rights and opinions of non-citizens who lawfully reside here.