Seventeen family members of people killed in the September 11, 2001, World Trade Center attacks are appealing a court decision that ultimately will decide where unidentified victims' remains will rest.
A federal appeals panel has tossed out a lawsuit against Hustler magazine brought by the family of a slain professional wrestling personality, a case testing privacy concerns and the competing right to publish "newsworthy" material.
The Supreme Court wrestled Wednesday with a familiar, if elusive, foe -- legislative intent -- when considering whether a California man should be compensated after the government violated his privacy by disclosing his personal medical history.
The interpretation of complex legal verbiage is the Supreme Court's bailiwick, but sometimes the outcome of a case falls upon the meaning of single word. The magic word in an appeal argued Wednesday was "personal," and whether it extends beyond humans to "artificial" entities like corporations.
The Supreme Court has decided that the family of a slain professional wrestling personality can continue its lawsuit against Hustler magazine, a case that tested privacy concerns and the competing right to publish "newsworthy" material.
Lots of legal experts greeted the Valerie Plame lawsuit against Vice President Cheney and White House senior officials Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby with skepticism, largely because it will have to overcome an almost certain argument that Cheney and company are, as federal officials, immune to being sued for on-the-job behavior. But the argument to dismiss the lawsuit outright isn't so simple to make.
Years ago, senators didn't even question presidential nominees to the Supreme Court. Now they do, of course, and Judge Samuel Alito may wish this week, as the questions flood over him, that he'd lived in that quieter time.
Justice Department lawyers have sent a letter to key congressional leaders providing legal arguments they say justify President Bush's decision to authorize the National Security Agency to intercept communications between people in the United States and potential terrorist contacts abroad.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said Monday that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers told him in a private meeting that she believed the 1965 case of Griswold vs. Connecticut -- a landmark ruling establishing the right to privacy -- was "rightly decided."
The White House began a renewed attempt Monday to rally backing for Harriet Miers, whose nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court has failed to attract widespread support from any part of the political spectrum.
Judge John Roberts, President Bush's pick to succeed William Rehnquist as the nation's chief justice, appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for the third day of his confirmation hearings Wednesday. Read below for some of the questions posed to the nominee in the hearings so far and his responses on the legal issues of the day.
If you are -- as I am -- a devotee of sports talk radio, then you have been bombarded this week with criticism of Congress' decision to subpoena a number of current and former baseball players to testify about steroid use. Only discussion of the NCAA basketball championships has vied for prominence with the steroid subpoena story.
A Pinellas County Circuit Court judge has dealt Florida Gov. Jeb Bush a first-round defeat by ruling that a law specifically intended to save the life of a brain-damaged woman is unconstitutional and a violation of the right to privacy.
In connection with his defense of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (or PBABA), Attorney General John Ashcroft recently sought to procure the medical records of 45 patients at a Chicago, Illinois, hospital. He contended that because he sought the records without patient identification, privacy concerns were not implicated.