Search for: "Smith v. Maryland" Results 281 - 300 of 670
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
The two Supreme Court cases that comprise the bedrock of legal precedent for the third-party doctrine—Smith v Maryland and United States v Miller—do not apply to cell site location data, the court found: We agree with the defendant…that the nature of cellular telephone technology and CSLI and the character of cellular telephone use in our current society render the third-party doctrine of Miller and Smith inapposite; the digital age… [read post]
28 Dec 2013, 5:41 am by Benjamin Wittes
On the merits, I agree with Judge Pauley that—at the lower court level, at least—there is just no way around the fact that Smith v. [read post]
24 Mar 2017, 7:02 am by Rokia Hassanein
Federal courts in Hawaii and Maryland have put the second ban temporarily on hold nationwide. [read post]
In its brief, the City Bar takes on the district court’s conclusion that a decades-old precedent about a narrow use of phone-records collection, Smith v. [read post]
8 Jun 2016, 1:21 pm by Stewart Baker
Organizations whose hate speech has mainly been aimed at Smith v. [read post]
6 May 2019, 12:05 pm by John Elwood
Smith; and (3) whether the Supreme Court should reaffirm Smith’s hybrid-rights doctrine, applying strict scrutiny to free exercise claims that implicate other fundamental rights, and resolve the circuit split over the doctrine’s precedential status. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 9:04 am
The FISA Court also dismissed all constitutional concerns with the program as it has in the past by repeatedly citing the same outdated Supreme Court case, Smith v Maryland, that has been the bane of digital rights advocates for decades. [read post]
29 Jul 2014, 4:35 pm by Hanni Fakhoury
Our amicus brief also explains that the 35-year-old Supreme Court decision in Smith v. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 12:38 pm by Steve Hall
More on last week's oral argument in Smith v. [read post]
7 Oct 2009, 6:59 am
Bandes analyzes the issues at stake in Maryland v. [read post]