Another high-profile political name is in the news again for an alleged sexual assault. And no, it’s not Donald Trump. This time, it’s Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas whose name has surfaced–brought up by an Alaskan lawyer on her Facebook page earlier this month. Moira Smith, who was 23 at the time, claims that Thomas groped her at a dinner in 1999.

And while we shouldn’t question why a woman comes forward with a claim of past sexual assault, Smith’s reasoning is worth noting–it seems that the accusations against Donald Trump that surfaced earlier this month propelled her to go public. Smith’s accusations, while certainly pointed at Thomas, also add to a recognizable pattern. Thomas once again joins the scores of high-profile, powerful men who are accused of sexual assault but seemingly never thought they’d get caught. Although it’s also worth noting that this isn’t the first time Thomas has been accused of this kind of behavior–the Anita Hill accusations of 1991 are just as noteworthy. If nothing else comes out of this election cycle and out of these myriad allegations, it seems like there is one, shining potential: we start to dismantle the idea that we should believe powerful men over these scores of women.

So let’s talk about those powerful men. Trump–who is currently not only facing scrutiny over his comments to Billy Bush in 2005, but also multiple accounts of women who say that he groped, sexually assaulted, or attempted to sexually assault them–is probably the first example that comes to mind. But Bill Clinton has also been accused of sexual assault multiple times, an issue that has resurfaced as Hillary Clinton runs for the office. And the conversation about powerful men and what they have previously been able to get away with hasn’t just been limited to political figures. Bill Cosby, once beloved, has now been accused of sexual assault by over 30 women (although, in aggravating fairness, it of course took a male comedian pointing out the allegations to really spark the outrage). Accusations against Woody Allen, while they haven’t stopped him from making movies, have certainly colored many’s perceptions of him.

All of these men have, in a lot of ways, gotten off kind of easily, and the women who come forward with assault allegations are still put through the ringer in the court of public opinion, which will do almost anything to avoid believing them. Nothing new there. But many people are also now backing them up, pointing out the ubiquity of sexual harassment and assault as an American woman.

After the Billy Bush/Donald Trump account surfaced, women started taking to Twitter to talk about the first time they were every sexually assaulted.

ME: 14, molested in pool by family friend. 19, ejaculated on by fratboy while asleep. 23, said NO, got shoved/spit on/called a dyke #NOTOKAY

— Sheila Callaghan (@sheilacalla) October 18, 2016

@kellyoxford birth father forced me to give him a blowjob. I was 11. Told family 2 years later. I was called a liar. #notokay

— Karen Ott Guerinot (@OttGuerinot) October 16, 2016

@kellyoxford 22- boss asked for me to rub his shoulders-then said it turned him on. i left the room and was fired the next day.#notokay

— anita (@peezer01) October 15, 2016

@kellyoxford I was 12 alone with a man in an elevator, he felt up my then not developed breasts. I’ve never told anyone until now. #NOTOKAY

— Dee Harlow (@DWanderlustress) October 14, 2016

Almost every single woman has a story like that. So why is it so hard to believe that powerful men are in some cases the cause? Are they somehow immune from contributing to an issue that is clearly pervasive? How is it easier to believe that women who accuse powerful men are only after their money or fame when it’s been shown time and time again that that’s not the case?

Smith even said she came forward specifically because of the current movement to speak out against sexual harassment and assault. In an interview she explained her motivations saying:

I have an eight-year-old daughter. Before last weekend, I had subconsciously convinced myself she would never go through this and now I know she almost certainly will. I am responsible to help minimize the risks and help her to understand what to do if she does, and to model the behavior that it’s not OK. It has changed my worldview as a mother.

She also said:

We now know that many men in power take advantage of vulnerable women. That willingness by men in power to take advantage of vulnerable women relies on an unspoken pact that the women will not speak up about it. Why? Because they are vulnerable. Because they are star-struck. Because they don’t want to be whiners. Because they worry about their career if they do speak out. But silence no longer feels defensible; it feels complicit.

Smith’s statements are, in a lot of ways, the point: “We now know that many men in power take advantage of vulnerable women.” Maybe the end result of these accusations is that we start treating them more as more than just myths.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are We Finally Going to Start Believing that Powerful Men Can be Sexual Assailants? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

New Allegations Against Clarence Thomas Surface

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been accused of sexual assault by Moira Smith, an Alaskan lawyer. Smith claimed that when she was 23–in 1999–Thomas groped her at a dinner party when she was working in DC. Thomas was already a Supreme Court justice at that point. Smith posted about the allegations on Facebook, and was then interviewed by The National Law Journal. In an interview she explained her motivations for coming forward, saying:

We now know that many men in power take advantage of vulnerable women. That willingness by men in power to take advantage of vulnerable women relies on an unspoken pact that the women will not speak up about it. Why? Because they are vulnerable. Because they are star-struck. Because they don’t want to be whiners. Because they worry about their career if they do speak out. But silence no longer feels defensible; it feels complicit.

Clarence Thomas–who was also accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill during his Senate confirmation in 1991–denies the allegations by Smith.

Anita Hill discusses Moira Smith’s accusation that Justice Thomas groped her in 1999 https://t.co/D2DpakjdIV via @TheNLJ @ZoeTillman pic.twitter.com/5q29qpBpBo

— Beth Frerking (@BethFrerking) October 27, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 28, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

This post is part of Law Street’s continuing analysis of the recent Supreme Court rulings. To read the rest of the coverage click here.

Gun Control: Voisine v. United States

The decision: The 6-2 ruling prevents anyone convicted of “reckless domestic assault” from being able to own firearms.

Some background

This case involves two men from Maine, Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong III, who were convicted of unlawfully possessing firearms due to previous convictions for domestic assault. Under both state and federal law, anyone with a domestic violence conviction cannot possess firearms.

Both men claimed that, under federal law, they were allowed to own firearms because their convictions were deemed “reckless” conduct rather than “knowing” or “intentional.”

Under Maine state law, it is a misdemeanor to “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly” cause bodily harm to another person. The Federal law, however, only mentions “intentionally” or “knowingly” causing harm as a misdemeanor, so Voisine and Armstrong tried to claim that their convictions fell under “reckless” domestic assault. As a result, they claimed that under federal law they were lawfully allowed to possess firearms despite their misdemeanor convictions.

While this may seem like a minor technicality, it would’ve potentially allowed people convicted of misdemeanor domestic assault to be able to lawfully own firearms.

The Court shut these claims down by ruling that “reckless domestic assault qualifies as a ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.'”

Justice Thomas’ Dissent

Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the two justices who did not join the majority decision, wrote a scathing dissent accusing the decision of being restrictive of Second Amendment rights. He wrote in his opinion:

We treat no other constitutional right so cavalierly. At oral argument the Government could not identify any other fundamental constitutional right that a person could lose forever by a single conviction for an infraction punishable only by a fine.

This isn’t the first time that Justice Thomas has been outspoken on this case. Back in February, Thomas famously broke a 10-year streak of never asking a question during oral arguments for this same case. With his question, he claimed that the federal laws that prevented domestic abusers from obtaining firearms were in violation of constitutional rights.

What does today’s ruling mean?

While it was technically already illegal for anyone with a misdemeanor conviction of domestic assault to own a firearm, today’s ruling just closed a loophole. It demonstrated the court’s general support for some gun control measures by offering greater protections to victims of domestic violence.

The decision was another win for advocates of stricter gun control measures.

Read the full opinion here.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Decision Prevents Domestic Abusers from Owning Firearms appeared first on Law Street.

A verdict in Utah v. Strieff was handed down by the Supreme Court yesterday, weighing in on how the Fourth Amendment applies to illegal searches. In a 5 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed a ruling from the Utah Supreme Court, concluding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment can be used in court.

The case began when a narcotics detective in Salt Lake City, Utah stopped Edward Strieff after he exited a house that was being monitored for potential drug activity. The detective had seen multiple people making brief stops at the house, calling Strieff’s activities into suspicion. When the detective stopped Strieff, he asked him what he was doing and to provide some identification. He relayed Strieff’s information to a dispatch officer who found that Strieff had an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation. Strieff was arrested for this violation and promptly searched upon arrest.

So, what’s the Fourth Amendment question? The search revealed that Strieff had methamphetamine and a pipe on him, which were later used as evidence against him. Strieff challenged the case to the District Court, arguing that the evidence should not be used because it was obtained from an illegal search. The District Court and the Court of Appeals both ruled against Strieff, but when he appealed once again to the Utah Supreme Court, the ruling turned in his favor. Finally, the Utah Attorney General appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In his majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas argues that the evidence used to convict Strieff was legally gathered. Thomas writes that, although the original stop may not have been constitutional, the fact that the officer later obtained an arrest warrant meant that the evidence was collected legally. As Thomas puts it,

The discovery of that warrant broke the causal chain between the unconstitutional stop and the discovery of evidence by compelling Officer Fackrell to arrest Strieff.

Three justices–Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan–dissented from the majority opinion. In her dissent, Justice Sonya Sotomayor destroyed the opposing argument. She eloquently described exactly why police powers should not be so broad and how the court’s decision, and the unlawful stops that will likely follow, will have disastrous effects on the public. The end of her dissent is a chilling reminder of how far we have to go as a country when it comes to liberty and equality:

By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged. We must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely targeted by police are “isolated.” They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere. They are the ones who recognize that unlawful police stops corrode all our civil liberties and threaten all our lives.

Several groups were also deeply disappointed with the case’s outcome and the effects it may have in the future. The ACLU tweeted its disapproval:

We are deeply disappointed. #SCOTUS got it wrong on the 4th Amendment in Streiff, with terrible repercussions, esp. for people of color.

— ACLU National (@ACLU) June 20, 2016

Regardless of the circumstances of this case, the decision gives unprecedented power to police under the Fourth Amendment. People may now be stopped on the streets without having committed a crime. Even worse, any incriminating evidence that results from an unlawful stop may be legally used against you in court. This decision has the power to lead to more and more unconstitutional searches by police.

In the words of Justice Sotomayor, people who are targeted by the police in the way that this decision will now expand, are a warning to us all. They point to injustice in our justice system and show us where we need to improve in order to ensure the liberty for all that is promised in our Constitution. She concluded her dissent saying,

“Until their voices matter too, our justice system will continue to be anything but.”

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Utah v. Strieff: SCOTUS Narrows Fourth Amendment Protections appeared first on Law Street.

A Georgia man on death row, Tyrone Foster, may get a second chance after the Supreme Court weighed in on the evidence of racial bias found in his jury trial. SCOTUS’s decision overturned the Georgia Supreme Court ruling, and will most likely lead to a new trial for Foster–29 years after he was first sentenced to death.

Foster, a black man charged with the rape and murder of an elderly white woman, Queen Madge White, was tried by an all-white jury. Moreover, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that the prosecutors wanted it that way–they struck black jurors for reasons that appeared to be racially motivated. For example, in the notes that the prosecutors took during jury selection, they marked black potential jurors with a “b.” According to the LA Times, one black juror was excluded because the prosecutor said that “his son was convicted of ‘basically the same thing’ as the defendant, who was charged with rape and murder. In fact, the man’s son had been given a suspended sentence five years earlier for stealing hubcaps from a car.” Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the decision, wrote that “the focus on race in the prosecution’s file plainly demonstrates a concerted effort to keep black prospective jurors off the jury.”

A 1986 case, Batson v. Kentucky, made it clear that it’s up to judges to watch over prosecutors when it comes to jury selection, and probe their choices if anything seems amiss. But that process does rely on judges to actually follow through–and in Foster’s case, the judges accepted the prosecutors’ reasoning for why certain jurors were selected and others weren’t.

But Foster’s case is also somewhat rare, in that the defendant’s lawyers were actually able to prove that there was racial motivation in the jury selection. Stephen Bright of the Southern Center of Human Rights, who was Foster’s lead lawyer, pointed out:

This discrimination became apparent only because we obtained the prosecution’s notes which revealed their intent to discriminate. Usually that does not happen. The practice of discriminating in striking juries continues in courtrooms across the country. Usually courts ignore patterns of race discrimination and accept false reasons for the strikes.

Foster’s case will now be reevaluated–and while it’s not ensured he’ll receive a new trial, it certainly seems like the most likely possibility.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Weighs in on Black Man Sentenced to Death by All-White Jury appeared first on Law Street.

They say that silence is golden and, apparently, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas agrees. Everyone get out your party hats and balloons, because yesterday marked a ten year anniversary worth celebrating: Justice Thomas has officially gone an entire decade without asking a single question from the bench of the Supreme Court.

The last time Thomas uttered anything at all from the bench? A little over three years ago on January 14, 2013. The country erupted in cheers and excitement as Thomas spoke his first words in almost seven years of silence from the bench: “well–he did not–.” While these were the only words captured by the court transcript on that monumental day, spectators in the court claim that Thomas was making a tasteful joke about the uselessness of a law degree from his alma mater, Yale. The subsequent laughter recorded in the courtroom seems to support those claims.

The last time Thomas asked a question? Well, since yesterday marked the ten year anniversary of his inquisitive silence, that puts his last question on February 22, 2006. To put that into perspective, try to remember what you were doing on this day in 2006. Perhaps, re-watching the first “High School Musical” for the fiftieth time? Singing along to Kelly Clarkson’s “Breakaway?” Maybe even getting excited about the release of the Nintendo DS Lite! 2006 was a long time ago. He asked the question in the middle of Holmes v. South Carolina, a contentious case about the death penalty. Ironically enough, the question almost seems like it was a statement in the form of a question:

Counsel, before you change subjects, isn’t it more accurate that the trial court actually found that the evidence met the Gregory standard?

After approximately eighteen lines of text in the court transcript (which has particularly large margins and is in a font much bigger than Times New Roman), the attorney Thomas had spoken up to correct was shut down, and Thomas returned to his state of hibernation for another few years. Who knows if he will ever speak again!

Thomas is supposedly a proponent of more listening on the Supreme Court and thinks that it is more in his nature to listen than to ask a bunch of questions. Well, hey, to each their own. If he thinks he can do his job best by just sitting back and taking it all in, he can go for it. You keep doing you, Justice Thomas!

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Ten Years of Silence: Will Justice Clarence Thomas Ever Speak Up Again? appeared first on Law Street.

As more and more young people become interested in what is going on in the Supreme Court, there has been a call for cameras to be allowed inside the deliberations. With an especially important verdict on gay marriage rights for all 50 states coming in April, as well as many other heavy decisions, it seems like there’s no time like the present to install cameras in the hallowed halls’ however, two justices–Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor–recently spoke against the move, making it unclear if the American people will ever have a glimpse into the court’s proceedings.

There is such transparency for some courts and cases–especially those involving celebrities and high-profile individuals. A group of media and legal organizations have joined together to form an organization called the Coalition for Court Transparency, and it petitioned Chief Justice John Roberts to start televising the arguments occurring in the nation’s capital. His response? “There are no plans to change the Court’s current practices.”

Throughout the last two decades or so, the justices have given many different reasons for banning cameras inside of the courtroom, including: cameras will encourage “showy” testimonials, the media will use embarrassing sound bites, or that people will misunderstand and judge without looking into the details; however, there are some who speak of the importance of having some transparency within the Supreme Court because it would encourage Americans to learn more about their judicial system: “There’s a real hunger out there from people to know more about the Supreme Court and the justices,” said Ariane de Vogue, Supreme Court correspondent for ABC News. “I think it would be a marvelous educational opportunity.”

Read on to learn about the considerations that must be taken into account during the debate over whether or not to put cameras in the Supreme Court.

Why should we break tradition?

The Supreme Court stands virtually alone when it comes to cameras inside the courtroom. States make their own rules when it comes to this issue, but many do allow them–as do the highest courts in some nations. Some states even livestream proceedings.

Jerry Goldman, director of the Oyez Project at the Chicago-Kent College of Law at the Illinois Institute of Technology says that the Supreme Court is simply behind the times and always will be unless there is some new blood within its walls: “It’s just uncomfortable with change,” said Goldman, whose website catalogs oral argument audio. “They’re always in the caboose.”

Another professor, Sonja West from the University of Georgia School of Law, sees it a different way: the Supreme Court Justices fear breaking something that already works well, afraid what such a monumental change will bring: “They feel very much like the guardians of a very important institution,” said West, who wrote about the Court’s camera policy in the Brigham Young University Law Review. West also says that the Court is so staunchly traditional because of the respect that shroud of secrecy gives–and respect is a main source of power.

Yet another professor, this one of Constitutional Law at Georgia State, Eric Segall, argues that because the justices are government officials, they should not have the choice of whether or not to be transparent. He suggests that the Court should have the burden of proving why cameras should not be allowed, and not the other way around. “This is a public hearing,” Segall said. “It’s open to the public. It’s material. It’s relevant, and people want to televise it. We should be allowed to see it.”

“We have three branches of government,” Dahlia Lithwick, who covers the Supreme Court for Slate, said about camera access. “Two of them are totally transparent, and one of them is completely secret, and that’s a problem.”

Why might the Supreme Court not want cameras?

There have been a few arguments made repeatedly by the Supreme Court justices and those who support them in their calls for privacy. Each one has reasons why it’s a good idea to retain some mystery, but there are also reasons why the need for transparency may overcome the possible adverse effects.

The Public Will Misunderstand What is Going On

Justices have traditionally opposed cameras because people will not understand the role of oral arguments and will jump to conclusions and “root” for an outcome of the case. Justice Scalia has even gone on record to say that the complexity and interworking of the law “is why the University of Chicago Law Review is not sold at a 7-Eleven.”

Sotomayor told a reporter that arguments should not be televised in part because most viewers “don’t take the time to appreciate what the Court is doing.”

However, to some, this view has it backward. Broadcasts of arguments would help the public learn about the Court’s operations, according to Segall. “The more we see Justice [Antonin] Scalia being obnoxious, the more we see Justice [Anthony] Kennedy acting like a law professor, the more we see Justice [Clarence] Thomas sitting there and doing nothing, the more we have insight into the people who work for us.”

Still, there is a chance that people will misunderstand what is happening with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has always had problems when it comes to public opinion with consistent periods of low approval ratings, it is easy to see why that could be a fear. A simple misunderstanding could create mistrust between the public and the Court, undermining their effectiveness.

Even for those who are college educated, law isn’t typically a mandatory course like math or even political science. It will be difficult for the general public to grasp some of what is happening within the Supreme Court.

Picking and Choosing

Justices have also feared that putting video cameras into the proceedings will allows journalists to take quotes from the hearing and use them as sound bites for laughs and shock.

Kennedy once said he does not want the Court to become part of “the national entertainment network.”

And Scalia told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “[F]or every ten people who sat through our proceedings gavel to gavel, there would be 10,000 who would see nothing but a thirty-second takeout from one of the proceedings, which I guarantee you would not be representative of what we do.”

Pretty much every news network uses videos of politicians in order to prove points–and taking things out of context seems to be the norm. So, is there something to be said about fearing the editing process? Of course–as with anything. However, it will be up to the journalist to uphold ethics when reporting the news. What comes out of the mouths of the Justices isn’t always how they truly feel or how they want the case to go. Any footage that is taken from the proceedings will have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Cameras and Audio

In addition to video imaging from within the Supreme Court, there has also been a ban on audio recording from within the chambers. In the past, audio recordings have been doctored and then misreported by news outlets, leading to headaches. That has slackened some, and audio recordings are now available after the verdict has been announced. Sometimes they will release same-day audio for high-profile cases, but this is extremely rare.

Notably, one can still get same-day written transcripts of the oral arguments and opinion announcements; however, these do not take things like tone and delivery into consideration. The Justices have learned to choose their words wisely so that they do not come across wrong on paper.

Sotomayor discussed the problems with all reporting to The New York Times, saying:

I don’t think most viewers take the time to actually delve into either the briefs or the legal arguments to appreciate what the court is doing,” she said. “They speculate about, oh, the judge favors this point rather than that point. Very few of them understand what the process is, which is to play devil’s advocate.

It obviously took a while to get to the point where audio recordings are allowed as well, and it might seem like they’re pretty much the same thing as video recordings; however, they’re probably less likely to be mass-distributed on platforms such as news shows, and therefore, less likely to be misconstrued.

Performance Issues

There are also concerns that if cameras are brought into the Supreme Court, the advocates will pander to them. Instead of focusing on the merit of their arguments, they will try to be more convincing and flashy. That being said, that worry gives very little credit to the attorneys arguing the cases–their arguments would still be what the Supreme Court decided on, so there would be little value in creating a performance for outside audiences.

Conclusion

Putting cameras in the Supreme Court is going to take some work from everyone involved. It isn’t going to be something that can have a seamless transition and just happen overnight. Instead, it is something that journalists, viewers, lawyers, and justices will have to come to terms with, and change their behaviors accordingly.

Whatever the change is, there needs to be more transparency in a system that is broken. The Coalition for Court Transparency claims:

Currently, to attend Supreme Court hearings, individuals must stand in line outside the building and wait to be ushered in. There are roughly 400 seats in the courtroom, only a fraction of which are available to the public. That means countless Americans hoping to view the arguments are unable to, especially in cases that have broad public interest, such as the marriage equality, Obamacare, voting rights, and affirmative action cases in recent terms. For these types of cases, interested citizens must often line up hours, if not days, in advance of the arguments. In some instances they have to compete with “line-standers” whose employers have been paid thousands of dollars to hold a powerful or wealthy person’s place in line.

Stay tuned for the next few months as the changes are sure to come quickly.

Resources

Primary

Oyez Project: Latest 

Supreme Court: Transcripts and Recordings of Oral Arguments

Additional 

BYU Law Review: The Monster in the Courtroom

Slate: Amicus: Cameras in the Courtroom

Open SCOTUS: Coalition Letter

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: Holding Out Against Cameras at the Supreme Court

National Constitution Center: Justices’ Comments Cast More Doubts on Supreme Court Cameras 

USA Today: Justices Rock it on the Road, If You Can Find Them

Blaze: New Push to Get Video Cameras in Supreme Court

NPR: Once Under Wraps, Supreme Court Audio Trove Now Online

Slate: Punch and Judge Judy

Tampa Bay Times: Sotomayor No Longer Favors Video Cameras at Supreme Court

CNN: Supreme Court Agrees to Take on Same-Sex Marriage Issue

Slate: Supreme Court Justices Are Not Really Judges

Daily Signal: Public Opinion and the Supreme Court

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Televised Trials: Should Cameras Be Allowed in the Supreme Court? appeared first on Law Street.