Several major Supreme Court rulings came out on Thursday, including what amounts to a rejection of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration as well as an opinion upholding the affirmative action admissions program at the University of Texas at Austin. This post will be updated as more rulings come out, check back on Monday for the next wave of decisions.

Here is Law Street’s editorial team with what you need to know:

Update–June 26 rulings:

Corruption: McDonnell v. United States

The decision: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously to overturn corruption convictions of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and his wife. However, there is still a possibility that they can be retried under the court’s new interpretation of the law.

Click here to read a full analysis of the ruling and what it means for the future of political bribery.

Abortion Restrictions: Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

The decision: In a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Texas’s restrictive regulations on abortion clinics. Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy joined Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan to provide the majority necessary to overturn Texas’s House Bill 2. The ruling concluded that the restrictions placed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion.

Click here to read a full analysis of the ruling and what it might mean for similar abortion restrictions in other states.

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.

Click here to read a full analysis of the ruling and what it might mean for gun control.

Immigration: United States v. Texas

The decision: With the court in a 4-4 split, the decision of the Fifth Circuit is upheld, blocking president Obama’s executive action on immigration, namely DAPA and the expansion of DACA.

Click here to read a full analysis of the ruling and what it means for immigrants in the United States.

Affirmative Action: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

The decision: The Supreme Court ruled that the University of Texas at Austin can, legally, continue to factor race into admissions decisions.

Click here to read a full analysis of the ruling and what it means for the future of affirmative action.

The Fourth Amendment: Utah v. Strieff

The decision: In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court narrowed its interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and it protections against illegal searches, allowing evidence that may have been obtained illegally to be used in court.

Click here to read a full analysis of the opinion and how it may lead to more illegal searches in the future.

—

Check back here for additional coverage of new Supreme Court rulings. The final round of decisions is expected to be released on Monday, June 27.

Correction: a previous version of this article incorrectly stated the date when the next round of decisions are expected. It is Monday, June 27 not Monday, July 1.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Everything You Need to Know About the Recent Supreme Court Rulings appeared first on Law Street.

Throw out your colanders and get rid of all of your spaghetti, a Nebraska judge ruled that Pastafarianism is not a real religion.

Stephen Cavanaugh, a Nebraska inmate, sued Nebraska prison officials seeking $5 million in 2014, arguing that his religion should be treated like every other religion. He claims that he was mocked and harassed over his belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He also claims that prison staff would not provide accommodations for his religion, as they do with others, by refusing to allow him to meet for worship services, to wear religious clothing and pendants, and to receive communion.

Pastafarianism is the belief that the earth was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), who made it much like it is today. Members of the church say that heaven “has a Beer Volcano and Stripper Factory.” They also dress like pirates. Communion is taken by eating “a large portion of spaghetti and meatballs.”

“Fremont Solstice Parade 2008: Flying Spaghetti Monster” courtesy of Mark Atwood via Flickr

In his ruling, released on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Gerrard wrote, “FSMism” is a “parody intended to advance an argument about science, the evolution of life, and the place of religion in public education,” rather than a religion explicitly outlined by federal law.

Cavanaugh is currently serving a four to eight-year sentence in the Nebraska State Penitentiary for assault and weapons charges.

This is not the first time that members of the FSM church have retaliated for not being treated like practitioners of a legitimate religion. There have been multiple cases of followers fighting for the right to wear the symbolic colander on their heads in driver’s license photos and to have the church’s flag on government property.

At the center of the controversy is the question of whether or not Pastafarianism should be considered a legitimate religion. Some lawmakers have argued that it isn’t, like in the case of Cavanaugh, but some scholars are hard-pressed to deny it that right.

“There’s an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in,” evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote in Wired. “If there’s not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it.”

In the age of religious freedom, the dismissal of religion by members of other religions seems contradictory. If the basis of religion is proof, then it is not quite certain how any religion can meet the criteria.

Lindsay Miller of Lowell, Massachusetts was denied the right to wear a pasta strainer on her head in her license photo. Headgear is not approved, unless for specific religious circumstances in Massachusetts, so Miller appealed. She was ultimately allowed to wear her strainer.

Pastafarian, Lindsay Miller allowed to wear strainer on her head in driver’s license photo, citing religious freedom! pic.twitter.com/y6MwWSTv3t

— John Zelaski (@jzelaski) November 18, 2015

“The First Amendment applies to every person and every religion, so I was dismayed to hear that Lindsay had been ridiculed for simply seeking the same freedoms and protections afforded to people who belong to more traditional or theistic religions,” Patty DeJuneas, a member of the Secular Legal Society, said in a statement released by the American Humanist Association.

Ultimately, the state of Nebraska felt, “The essence of this action… is that prison officials believe the Plaintiff is not sincere in his religious beliefs about a flying lump of spaghetti that first created ‘a mountain, trees, and a midget.'”

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Flying Spaghetti Monster, a Religious Impasta? appeared first on Law Street.