Supreme Court Notebook

U.S. court throws out broadcast indecency policy WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. Supreme Court has thrown out fines and sanctions against broadcasters who violated the Federal Communications Commission policy regulating curse words and nudity on broadcast television. The justices declined on Thursday to issue a broad ruling on the constitutionality of the FCC indecency policy. Instead, the court concluded only that broadcasters could not have known in advance that obscenities uttered during awards show programs and a brief display of nudity on an episode of ABC televisions 's NYPD Blue could give rise to sanctions. The justices said the FCC is free to revise its indecency policy. Court: Use new drug sentencing law in crack cases WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court says criminals who were arrested but not yet sentenced for crack cocaine offenses should be able to take advantage of newly reduced sentences. Corey A. Hill and Edward Dorsey were arrested in 2007 and 2008 for selling crack cocaine and faced mandatory 10-year sentences in Illinois. But they weren't sentenced until after the Fair Sentencing Act went into effect in August 2010. That law reduces the difference between sentences for crimes committed by crack cocaine and powder cocaine users. Justice Stephen Breyer said in a 5-4 decision Thursday that the courts should have used the new law to sentence the two men. Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. Court: Union must give fee increase notice WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court says a union must give nonmembers an immediate chance to object to unexpected fee increases that all workers are required to pay in closed-shop situations. The court on Thursday ruled for Dianne Knox and other nonmembers of the Service Employees International Union's Local 1000, who wanted to object and opt out of a $12 million special assessment the union required from its California public sector members. Knox and others said the union did not give them a legally required notice that the increase was coming. The union, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said the annual notice that the union gives was sufficient. The high court disagreed in a 7-2 judgment written by Justice Samuel Alito. Published: Fri, Jun 22, 2012