United States Supreme Court chooses 11 cases to (rule upon) this year.
Unions threaten members to vote democrat (with possible death, certain firing). Union dues go almost exclusively to Democrats.
Democrats have MANY unexpected deaths of pivotal people in their wake. The one below is one.*
* a few others: Death of DOS/Win95 lead programmer. Death of the original google author: Altavista. SEIU. It's a long long list.
Janus v. AFSCME
In late 2015, everyone expected Abood to be overruled in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. But Justice Antonin Scalia passed away before the decision was handed down, and the case was dismissed on a 4-4 tie vote. With Justice Neil Gorsuch now sitting in the seat formerly held by Justice Scalia, everyone is betting that Abood will not survive the current challenge.
Janus v. AFSCME. The issue in that case is whether forced union dues from public-sector unions to pay for political activity (almost always supporting liberal political candidates and priorities) violate the First Amendment.
Collins v. Virginia
Officer saw a motorcycle that eluded him (only a traffic case, not a felony elusion). He entered property stealthily to get VIN then "busted" the owner.
Virginia democrats have taken the position to CONTINUE PROSECUTION despite lack of warrant (and infact: lack of proof of legal harm - traffic elusion for motorcycles is somewhat of an "old game" - one I did at age 14 simply because I could).
It's a TERRIBLE precedent Virginia is TRYING to make law. HOWEVER THE REAL STORY HERE IS the victim of illegal and unreasonable search and seizure (of property and person, without any good cause either): should be suing the police (would win only if proven a repeated action by police upon the same person, legally). THIS IS A PRECEDENT OF ALLOWING STATES OF CLAIMING LAWS MUST BE RE-LODGED WHENEVER GOVERNMENT MIGHT LOOSE A CASE, THUS DIS-CLAIMING THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE TO BE DOING THE LAW. A dangerous precedent part of "loop holes" that are often purpetrated by governors infact.
The worst thing here is the Constitution clearly claims it's already illegal. But that's how many of these governors abuse their citizens: claiming a law must first be made that is infact boldly pressed into the Constitution and well know: to get out of lawsuits or to OPPRESS.
Byrd v. United States
Whether a driver in a rental car who is not listed as an authorized driver with the rental company still has a reasonable expectation of privacy preventing warrantless searches by the government under the Fourth Amendment.
(no - not if it's reported stolen! otherwise YES, it's not the governments business, the private decision, whether to risk insurance liability of a rental or whether the rental covers extra drivers (in some cases they do if paid for))
you may prosecute people (and get warrants to seek doing so) for legal injuries: but not otherwise
Hays v. Vogt
Whether the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is violated when incriminating statements are used at an initial probable-cause court hearing, even when those statements are excluded later during the full criminal trial.
As often is: the case is much different than it sounds.
Vogt filed for employement and admitted he'd "kept a knife" technically owned by the previous employer. The new employer made a condition he return the knife before hiring. police officer.
Vogt did return the knife with apology (perhaps he'd left it at home and thought it a small thing at the time), but was charged with TWO FELONY for a single knife, and the new employer retracted the employment offer.
Vogt was ultimately charged in Kansas state court with two felony counts related to his possession of the knife.
(KANSAS LAW seems to be a tempest. They should know a felony must rise above $2,000 and that a single knife cannot be such a thing as a felony.)
Because of this there is now an un-employed police officer who is now in a position to sue for financial losses. Worse: if the court allows this then they allow politicians to CONSTRUCT SITUATIONS OF SUCH FININACIAL LOSSES, so the court must have a double edge against the prosecutors and insure every penny comes from their pockets.
Finally, taking home a government pen is illegal, amoral, and ticket-able: however at the price they cost it is not CRIME.
(now to be exact: theft impugns intent and motive which is not clear in this case. cases of borderline borrowing, in Roman Law, are not cases of theft. withstanding that: small matters are not allowed to be heard by courts and i can't imagine a knife that isn't a small matter)
the fait of one individual is not usually heard by the United States Supreme Court. this is an exception case taken optionally by the USSC (their charter is foreign / trade matters, congress matters and constitutional cases, then after: state matters as optional).
again my ruling on this: insure kansas prosecuters LOOSE MONEY out of pocket for having created a problem for their own profits.