Recently in Supreme Court Category

MONTEBELLO -- Two additional suspects believed to be part of a nationwide burglary crew that was busted Tuesday at the Montebello Town Center are in custody, authorities said Thursday.
Los Angeles police did not release the names of the suspects citing the ongoing investigation.
The first three suspects were arrested while trying to break into a jewelry store at the shopping center, at 2134 Montebello Town Center, shortly after 5 a.m. Tuesday, Montebello police Lt. Brian Bart said.
LAPD officials had tipped off local authorities that the burglary crew may have been planning to strike at the mall that morning, he said.
"It was a good effort by multiple agencies," Bart said.
After the three suspects were arrested at the mall, Montebello and Monterey Park police searched the area seeking additional suspects, LAPD officials said, but none were found.
LAPD detectives then worked with the Orange County Sheriff's Department and the Glendale and Santa Ana Police Police Departments to serve search warrants at six Southland locations, according to an LAPD statement.
The two additional suspects were arrested during the search, and evidence connecting them to the crimes was recovered, police added.
Los Angeles police described all five suspects as black men in their mid-20s to mid-40s. They have been booked on suspicion of burglary and conspiracy to commit burglary.
"The crew's method of operation was to hit shopping malls during off-hours and burglarize predetermined jewelry businesses," the LAPD statement said.
Police added the alleged crew is believed to be connected to a commercial burglary ring "that has been active in at least five states, spanning from coast to coast."
Detectives from the LAPD's Southeast Area Property Crimes Unit had been looking into the suspected burglary crew for four months prior to the arrest, officials said.

Justice Antonin Scalia writes the opinion in this case, which is known as U.S. v. Williams:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court upheld criminal penalties Monday for promoting child pornography.

The court, in a 7-2 decision, brushed aside concerns that the law could apply to mainstream movies that depict adolescent sex, classic literature or innocent e-mails that describe pictures of grandchildren.

The ruling upheld part of a 2003 law that also prohibits possession of child porn. It replaced an earlier law against child pornography that the court struck down as unconstitutional.

The law sets a five-year mandatory prison term for promoting, or pandering, child porn. It does not require that someone actually possess child pornography. Opponents have said the law could apply to movies like "Traffic" or "Titanic" that depict adolescent sex.

But Justice Antonin Scalia, in his opinion for the court, said the law does not cover movie sex. there is no "possibility that virtual child pornography or sex between youthful-looking adult actors might be covered by the term 'simulated sexual intercourse.'" Scalia said.

Likewise, Scalia said, First Amendment protections do not apply to "offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography."

*There's a lot of interesting thought on the First Ammendment contained throughout Scalia's opinion. Here' s a section on the effect of the ruling on "Hollywood:"

Amici contend that some advertisements for mainstream Hollywood movies that depict underage charactershaving sex violate the statute. Brief for Free Speech Coalition et al. as Amici Curiae 9-18. We think it implausible that a reputable distributor of Hollywood movies,such as Amazon.com, believes that one of these films contains actual children engaging in actual or simulated sex on camera; and even more implausible that Amazon.com would intend to make its customers believe such a thing. The average person understands that sex scenes inmainstream movies use nonchild actors, depict sexual activity in a way that would not rise to the explicit level necessary under the statute, or, in most cases, both.