Here’s the domestic legal news we covered this week:
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [text], which is set to expire at the end of the year, is used by US intelligence officials to combat national and cyber security threats, and it allows officials to tap into and store digital communications from foreign suspects.
A week earlier, the same court through a three-judge panel temporarily blocked [JURIST report] a lower court ruling permitting the teen immigrant to have an abortion, noting that it needed time to consider the emergency motion.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) [official website], as well as other federal and state officials, claimed the teen had no inherent right [NPR report] to an elective abortion in the US due to her status as an undocumented immigrant.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Milett wrote:
[T]oday’s decision rights a grave constitutional wrong by the government.
The order states that the prior executive order [JURIST news archive] barring refugee admissions from a number of Islamic nations is no longer in effect and “the Secretary of State may resume travel of qualified and appropriately vetted refugees into the United States, and the Secretary of Homeland Security may resume adjudicating applications for refugee resettlement.” The order also notes that during the 120-day review period of the initial order, the Secretary of State and Department of Homeland Security [official websites] have concluded that the barring of refugees from the aforementioned nations was no necessary “to protect the security and interests of the United States and its people.”
Under this order, a new 90-day review period has been initiated.
Ten months ago, the US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that the previous judgment against Samsung was unfair and sent the case back to the district court to adjust the damages in accordance with the court’s definition of “article of manufacture,” under section 289 of the Patent Act [PDF].
The attorneys general argue that the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 [text, PDF] could “lead to the death of police officers and civilians, the proliferation of gun traffickers, and acts of terrorism and other mass violence.”
They further argue, “Under the legislation, our residents would lose the protections that their legislators and law enforcement agencies have deemed appropriate, in favor of rules made by States legislating for very different local conditions.