Constitutional Law

High Court Declines To Review Case On Regulation of Online Content

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to review a case intended to revive the embattled federal law aimed at curtailing material children can access on the Internet. The justices, without comment, declined to review Mukasey v. ACLU, which dealt with the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act. The 1998 law, which would made it illegal for Web sites to produce offensive material to children has been mired in court battles since its enactment and has never taken effect. It was passed after the high court invalidated an earlier law called the Communication Decency Act, also aimed at muzzling expression in cyberspace. The New York Times reports that today’s action by the high court was the final attempt by the federal government to revive the law. A federal judge in Philadelphia has ruled that the law violates the First Amendment, because filtering and other technologies are available to parents to help shield their children from online material they deem harmful and a federal appeals court has upheld that decision.

The high court also issued opinions in the following cases:

• In Pearson v. Callahan, the court in what Scotusblog describes as “a significant shift in constitutional doctrine” has loosened the strictures on judges considering government officials’ arguments to be spared liability for official actions. The opinion is available here.
• In Locke v. Karass, the justices unanimously found in favor of union officials to charge non-members fees to help support the national union’s lawsuits.
• In Spears v. U.S., the high court eased federal sentencing guidelines for judges presiding over cases involving crack cocaine.

Scotusblog has analysis of and additional information for the Pearson, Lock and Spears decisions here.

Full post as published by ACS Blog on January 21, 2009 (boomark / email).