The Supreme Court is hearing a case this week that could affect how much customers pay for online purchases.
At issue is a rule saying that businesses don't have to collect state sales taxes when those businesses ship to a state where they don't have an office, warehouse or other physical presence.
Large retailers with brick-and-mortar stores have to collect sales taxes nationwide, but smaller online sellers can often avoid doing so.
Large retailers say the rule puts them at a competitive disadvantage. States say they're losing out in billions of dollars in tax revenue.
But small businesses that sell online say the complexity and expense of collecting taxes nationwide could drive them out of business.
Facebook says it will stop spending money to fight a proposed California ballot initiative aimed at giving consumers more control over their data.
The measure, known as the "California Consumer Privacy Act," would require companies to disclose upon request what types of personal information they collect about someone and whether they've sold it. It also would allow customers to opt out of having their data sold.
The company made the announcement Wednesday as chief executive Mark Zuckerberg underwent questioning from Congress about the handling of user data.
Pressure has mounted on Facebook to explain its privacy controls following revelations that a Republican-linked firm conducted widespread data harvesting.
Facebook had donated $200,000 to a committee opposing the initiative in California - part of a $1 million effort by tech giants to keep it off the November ballot.
Facebook said it ended its support "to focus our efforts on supporting reasonable privacy measures in California."
Proponents of the ballot measure applauded the move.
"We are thrilled," said Mary Ross, president of Californians for Consumer Privacy.
The California Chamber of Commerce and other groups are fighting to keep the measure off the ballot through the "Committee to Protect California Jobs." Google, AT&T, Verizon and Comcast also contributed $200,000 each to that effort in February.
Committee spokesman Steve Maviglio said the measure would hurt the California economy.
"It is unworkable and requires the internet in California to operate differently - limiting our choices, hurting our businesses, and cutting our connection to the global economy," he said.
The Vermont Supreme Court has ruled that a teenager accused of planning a shooting at his former high school should not be kept in jail pending his trial.
The state's top court ruled on Wednesday that there's not enough evidence to show 18-year-old Jack Sawyer, of Poultney, attempted a crime, only that he prepared to commit one.
The decision reverses a lower-court order that Sawyer be held without bail.
An attorney for Sawyer had argued that while the teen made preparations for a shooting at Fair Haven Union High School he didn't take any concrete steps that under state law would justify charges including attempted aggravated murder, which allows a judge to reject bail.
Court documents say Sawyer had planned to carry out the attack last month. Sawyer has pleaded not guilty.
A gun openly carried by a spectator at a school concert in 2015 has turned into a major legal case as the Michigan Supreme Court considers whether the state's public schools can trump the Legislature and adopt their own restrictions on firearms.
The case from Ann Arbor has been on the court's docket for more than a year. But arguments set for Wednesday are getting extra attention in the wake of a Florida school shooting in February that killed 17.
There's no dispute that Michigan law bars people from possessing a gun inside a weapon-free school zone. But there's a wrinkle: Someone with a concealed pistol permit can enter school property with a gun that's openly holstered.
Though rare, it happened three years ago at a choir concert at Ann Arbor Pioneer High School, scaring teens, staff and spectators. The school board responded by banning all guns, with exceptions for police.
"If a student were to bring a gun into a school, that would be worthy of an expulsion," said Jeanice Kerr Swift, superintendent of Ann Arbor schools. "So why would it be different for other folks? ... What this case is about is local communities having a choice."
Separately, the Clio district, north of Flint, has a similar policy. The Supreme Court is hearing challenges from gun owners in both communities.
Gun-rights advocates argue that local governments, including elected school boards, can't step into an area reserved for the Michigan Legislature under state law. They point to a Lansing-area library whose ban on the open display of guns was struck down by the state appeals court in 2012.
But in Ann Arbor and Clio, another three-judge panel at the appeals court said schools are in a different category and have freedom to further restrict guns. The districts won that round.
Ken Herman, a paramedic and gun-owning parent who sued the Clio district, believes the appeals court got it wrong. In a filing at the Supreme Court, his attorney said schools have a duty to keep students safe, but lawmakers have "chosen to reserve the power to regulate the possession of firearms."
Herman, 36, said he carries a gun for protection wherever it's allowed. He said fears would be eased if more adults educated kids about proper gun ownership.
The clerk of court in one North Carolina county says she never meant to require any of her employees to work for her re-election even though that's what a leaked memo said.
After the memo was published, Surry County Clerk of Court Teresa O'Dell told the Mount Airy News that she doesn't require staff to work for her campaign. She acknowledged that the memo "seemed to indicate otherwise" and sent a follow-up note.
A memo distributed March 27th said employees would be required to campaign for her, including taking vacation time so they weren't doing political work while on the clock.
She also told staffers that she wouldn't be in the office before the primary. O'Dell is facing a challenge from Neil Brendle in the May 8 Republican primary.
Mississippi's Supreme Court says a woman has parental rights to a 6-year-old boy born to her ex-wife when the two were married, in a case watched by gay rights activists and groups aiding in vitro fertilization.
Chris Strickland brought the appeal, challenging a lower court decision that an anonymous sperm donor had parental rights and that Strickland didn't.
Strickland argued that the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage requires same-sex couples to be treated equally. She ultimately hopes to win 50-50 custody of a boy who bears her last name.
All nine justices, citing different reasons, found the original ruling flawed, although some wouldn't have gone as far as the main opinion. The case was ordered back to a lower court for the original judge to decide on custody.
A sharply divided top court voted early Thursday to reject an attempt by former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio da Silva to stay out of jail while he appeals a corruption conviction, delivering a hard blow to the front-running candidate in this year's presidential election in Latin America's largest nation.
After nearly 11 hours of often heated debate, the Supreme Federal Tribunal voted 6-5 to deny da Silva's request to stave off a 12-year prison sentence while he fights a conviction that he has always argued was nothing more than a ploy to keep him off of the October ballot.
Despite the conviction and several other corruption charges against him, da Silva leads all preference polls for the election.
The decision means that da Silva will likely be jailed soon, though probably not until at least next week thanks to various technicalities.
Chief Justice Carmen Lucia, who was sharply criticized during the session by various colleagues, cast the deciding vote after the court was tied at 5 to 5.
"The constitution secures individual rights, which are fundamental to democracy, but it also assures the exercise of criminal law," she said.
The debate at the Supreme Federal Tribunal underscored how fraught the matter is at a time of high tension and angst in Brazil.
Justice Gilmar Mendes, traditionally a critic of da Silva, voted in favor of da Silva's petition to stay out of jail, challenging his colleagues to buck pressure from society.
"If a court bows (to pressure), it might as well not exist," said Mendes.
Justice Luis Roberto Barroso argued that the integrity of the justice system was at stake.
"A penal system that doesn't work with minimal effectiveness leads to an instinct for taking justice into one's own hands," Barroso said in voting against da Silva.
Court Watch - Legal News
