Cspan3. All persons having persons before the honorable, Supreme Court of the United States who admonish to draw near and give their attention. Landmark cases, cspan special history series produced in partnership with the National Constitution center exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas behind 12 historic Supreme Court decisions. Mr. Chief justice may it please the court. Quite often in many of the most famous decisions are ones that the court took that were quite unpopular. Lets go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of different people who help stick together because they believe in a rule of law. Good evening and welcome to cspan landmark cases. Tonights case is katz versus the United States, it is a 1967 case and the person who gave his name to the case is somewhat of an unlikely hero. He was a bookmaker specializing in College Basketball games and he took his wiretapping case to the Supreme Court an
National conversation through cspans Daily Program or through our social media feeds. Cspan created by americas Cable Television companies as a Public Service and brought to you today by your television provider. All persons having business before the Honorable Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to draw near and give their attention. Landmark cases, cspans special history series produced in partnership with the National Constitution center. Exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas behind 12 historic Supreme Court decisions. Mr. Chief justice and may it please the court. Quite often in many of our most famous decisions are ones that the court took that were quite unpopular. Lets go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of different people who help stick together because they believe in a rule of law. Good evening and welcome to cspan landmark cases. Tonights case is katz versus the United States,
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. This oral argument from may is just over an hour and a half. The honorable, the chief justice and the associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oh yea, oh yea, all persons having business before the Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to give their attention as the court is now sitting. God save the United States and this honorable court. We will hear arguments in case 19431 Little Sisters of the poor v. Pennsylvania in the consolidated case. General francisco. Mr. Chief justice, may it please the court. In 2011, the government required employers to provide Insurance Coverage for all fda approved contraception, including many religious employers who objected to the coverage, sparking years of litigation. In 2017, in the best traditions of this countrys commitment to religious liberty, the government sought to resolve the issue by promulgating new rules, excepting those employers who objected t
Urt. They also declined to hear an appeal by the Trump Administration and its coming out california sanctuary state law. It bars local Law Enforcement from collaborating with federal immigration agents except in cases involving serious crimes. The Trump Administration says the conflicts with federal Immigration Law and makes it harder to deport people who were in the country illegally. It leaves him please Lower Court Rulings that upheld the law. The case of the former Police Officer accused of being the golden state killer. Joseph deangelo is set to plead guilty to 13 murders in sacramento two weeks from now. It would spare him the death penalty. The 74yearold would admit to scores of other crimes including rapes with the statute of limitations has expired. It could say the state as much as 20 million. He is charged in a string of rapes and murders in the 70s and 80s up and down our state. There were some early and noisy rawlings calling for the funding the Oakland Police department.
Harris Funeral Homes for six years until she told her boss she was going to live and identify as a woman. When harris homes responded by firing her, it discriminated against her because of her sex for three reasons. First, firing her for failing to conform to explicitly stated stereotypes about how men and women should behave. It discriminated against her in the same way as Price Waterhouse discriminated against anne hopkins for failing to walk and talk more feminine. It cannot be that anne hopkins would lose her case on the same facts. Second, harris fired her for identifying as a woman only because she was assigned male sex at birth. In doing so, they fired her for contravening a sex specific expectation that applies only to people assigned male sex at birth. Namely, that they live and identify as a man for their entire lives. That is disparate treatment on the basis of sex. Third, harris homes fired her for, and its owner words changing her sex. , that is discrimination in the same