Supreme Court Round-Up:

The article on the trespass regulation dealt with in VA v Hicks is correct to note the limited nature of the ruling. The regulation, which is open-ended in that there are various possible troubling applications to its broad terms (e.g. arguably legitimate expressive conduct, touched upon in the article), was broadly opposed. The test therefore was a high one for the petitioner.

All the same, it troubled me that the Supreme Court (unlike an earlier Findlaw article on this case that partly disagreed with the current article as well as the state courts below) totally ignored why the person was there. This article notes it, but in an arguably snide way: "At the time, he claimed he was delivering diapers to the mother of one of his children." "Claimed?" Is there any evidence he was not there for that purpose? And, if he was, surely it is relevant ... as noted by the earlier article, parental rights (including familial association) have constitutional significance. Arguably, they also have 1A applications.

Something is wrong with a statute, perhaps not as applied here, that doesn't specifically take into consideration that a parent is involved. The unfortunate fact that many in low income housing (proportionately in many cases much more than gated communities in general) are single parents also must be taken into consideration. And, yes, there is some "expressive" conduct involved here. When one visits one's family and children, there is usually some "expression" involved, also known as talking.

As with the decision last term that broadly gave the state power to remove residents from public housing who did not know their fellow residents used drugs (in some cases outside of the residence itself), regulations like this one are on some level obviously a good thing. All the same, they can be applied in troubling ways, especially if the interests at stake are totally ignored. Furthermore, the comparison to "gated communities" is a bit too blase. Many in public housing don't choose to live there ... and yes, when the government runs things they should at times be put to a higher standard. The power of the state as well as the overall limitations applied especially to them warrant it.

So, I'm not too upset at the result here, but I still am uneasy that it was deemed besides the point why Keven Hicks was there. It seems to be a tad bit relevant.

Another case handed by the US Supreme Court dealt with an old law that bars direct corporate contributions to candidates. A law few might have a problem with aside from those concerned with the free speech ramifications of preventing corporations to totally be unable to support candidates that whose interests are supported by them. The importance of funds to issue advocacy is much clearer when non-profit advocacy groups are involved, many of which are corporations for legal reasons. FEC v BEAUMONT dealt with just this sort of case, but did not treat such corporations differently. The rights of freedom of expression, including by associations established for that purpose, at their core raised in cases such as this one. The case therefore suggests the problems of unnuanced application of regulations on corporate spending and probably was wrongly decided for that very reason.

Sports: The NY Mets were involved in three one-hitters in a row (Fathers Day vs Angels, then they were one-hit by the Marlins, and then they returned the favor), winning two of them; the third was a 1-0 loss against Marlins' star rookie, as well as a pretty good return by Tom Glavine. Steve Trachsel went the distance after two poor outings, while Seo had help (Weathers and Benitez, continuing to look great), after he had to leave after 6 2/3 because of a split fingernail. The latter one-hitter was the first times the Mets knocked down the team minimum of opposing batters, the one hitter "caught" stealing (he was probably safe). The game was also close until late, the first run scored via a homer in the seventh, the rest in the ninth. The Father's Day game gave Reyes (grand slam, 5RBI) and Burnitz (two homers) a chance to shine. Meanwhile, Acevedo went to the Blue Jays, and Jeff Weaver continues to suck. The Yanks under Torre never did have a great fifth starter.