|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|09-1272||S. Ct. of KY||Jan 12, 2011||May 16, 2011||8-1||Alito||OT 2010|
Holding: The exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not create the exigency by engaging in or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment.
Plain English Holding: Police may enter a home without a warrant in response to an emergency (including the imminent destruction of evidence) so long as the police do not themselves create the emergency through conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment.
Judgment: Kentucky Supreme Court Reversed, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Alito on May 16, 2011. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissent.
JUST IN: The Supreme Court agrees to take up five new cases, including an appeal from a high school football coach who lost his job after he prayed on the field.
#SCOTUS will have more opinions next Thursday at 10 am.
A workplace vaccine-or-test requirement that would have covered 84 million workers -- blocked. A vaccine mandate for over 10 million health care workers -- allowed to take effect.
Full analysis from @AHoweBlogger on this afternoon's rulings:
Fractured court blocks vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces but green-lights vaccine mandate for health care workers - SCOTUSblog
With COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reaching a new record high as a result of the Omicron variant, the Suprem...
Here's a two-minute explainer from @katieleebarlow, SCOTUSblog's TikTokker-in-residence, on the pair of vaccine decisions the court just handed down.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court BLOCKS the federal government's COVID-19 vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces. The court ALLOWS a vaccine mandate for workers at federally funded health care facilities to take effect nationwide.
SCOTUS releases just one opinion today: an 8-1 decision on an arcane question of pension payments for "dual-status military technicians." The court rules in favor of the government's statutory interpretation and against the technicians. Barrett has the opinion; Gorsuch dissents.