Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsElena Kagan
IN THE NEWS

Elena Kagan

NEWS
January 25, 2011 | By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau
Six Supreme Court justices are expected to attend President Obama's State of the Union speech Tuesday, amid growing concern over the politicization of the nation's high court. A court spokesman would not identify which of the panel's nine justices would attend, but it appeared likely that Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would be the three to skip the president's speech. Alito, who shook his head in disagreement as Obama spoke last year, had accepted an offer to teach law classes in Hawaii this week.
Advertisement
BUSINESS
June 28, 2012 | By Ricardo Lopez and Chad Terhune
With the U.S. Supreme Court upholding President Obama's Affordable Care Act, state officials and healthcare leaders met the decision with mixed reaction, largely along party lines. Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Democrat, called the ruling on Twitter "great news for America's families. " And Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, in a statement, also heralded the news: "The Supreme Court today upheld the healthcare reform law passed by Congress in 2010, meaning Californians can be confident that access to affordable health insurance is finally a reality.
OPINION
May 12, 2010 | Jonathan Turley
If confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, Elena Kagan will bring greater diversity to the court by adding a third woman. What she will not bring is educational diversity. Her confirmation will leave the court entirely composed of former law students at either Harvard or Yale. The decision of President Obama to select a nominee from one of these two schools is particularly disappointing as a replacement for Justice John Paul Stevens — an iconic figure on the court who was also its only graduate from an alternative institution (Northwestern)
NEWS
June 26, 2013 | By David G. Savage
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court cleared the way Wednesday for same-sex marriages to resume in California as the justices, in a procedural ruling, turned away the defenders of Proposition 8. Chief Justice John Roberts, speaking for the 5-4 majority, said the private sponsors of Prop. 8 did not have legal standing to appeal after the ballot measure was struck down by a federal judge in San Francisco. "We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to," he said.
OPINION
April 27, 2014 | Times Editorial Board
Given the danger posed by drunk or reckless drivers, police should follow up on information - even information from an anonymous source - that a vehicle might be careening down a street or threatening other motorists and pedestrians. If they confirm that is the case, they should stop the vehicle. But that isn't what happened in a California case decided by the Supreme Court last week. The court's ruling makes it too easy for police to stop motorists on the basis of an anonymous tip. In 2008, a 911 dispatch team in Mendocino County received a report that a pickup truck had forced another vehicle off the road, giving rise to a concern that the driver might be drunk.
NATIONAL
June 25, 2012 | By Rene Lynch
They might well be the most powerful men and women in the nation, but most Americans probably couldn't pick the members of the U.S. Supreme Court out of a lineup. (Unless perhaps they were the only ones wearing long black robes.) As the court's current term draws to a close, it's issuing a series of monumental decisions this week that will affect every man, woman and child in the country. Today alone, the court handed down a split decision on Arizona's controversial immigration law, and ruled that it was unconstitutional to send juveniles to prison for life without the possibility of parole.
NATIONAL
June 24, 2011 | By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau
The Supreme Court on Thursday put an extra burden on crime labs, declaring that a man accused of drunken driving has the right to demand that a lab technician testify in person about a blood test that showed he was impaired. The 5-4 decision was the latest to extend the reach of a defendant's constitutional right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him. " And once again, the outcome was driven by an unusual coalition of conservative and liberal justices. Two years ago, the court said a crime lab technician was a witness for the prosecution and, therefore, must be available to testify.
NEWS
March 26, 2013 | By Noam N. Levey and David G. Savage
WASHINGTON - The lawyer defending California's ban on same-sex marriage drew skeptical questioning from swing justices Tuesday as the Supreme Court began two historic days of oral arguments considering the rights of gays and lesbians. Charles J. Cooper, whose clients include citizens who voted for California's 2008 Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage, tried to convince the justices that states should have the right to limit marriage to heterosexual couples because they can produce children.
OPINION
July 4, 2012
Re "Roberts shows he puts law above politics," June 30 What a sad state of affairs that we praise the chief justice of the Supreme Court because he "puts law ahead of politics. " Have we stooped that low? Of course, the country can be thankful thatJohn G. Roberts Jr.'s constitutional training brought him to his decision. Our country will be better for it. Are we to take from this that the four justices who voted against the Affordable Care Act put their politics before the law?
NATIONAL
March 25, 2014 | By David G. Savage
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court's conservative justices sharply criticized part of President Obama's healthcare law Tuesday, suggesting they will rule later this year that requiring Christian-owned corporations to offer their employees contraceptives coverage violates the freedom of religion. “Your reasoning would permit requiring profit-making corporations to pay for abortions,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who defended the contraceptives provision of the Affordable Care Act. The administration's lawyer warned that the court would be adopting a “dangerous principle” if it gave employers a right to exempt themselves from federal laws based on their religious beliefs.
Los Angeles Times Articles
|