<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Virginia Lawyers Weekly &#187; Constitutional</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/constitutional/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 20:35:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>DUI case could have impact on implied consent&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/29/dui-case-could-have-impact-on-implied-consent/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/29/dui-case-could-have-impact-on-implied-consent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:16:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Correy E. Stephenson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DUI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74054</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A U.S. Supreme Court decision addressing the constitutionality of blood draws from drunken driving suspects may have a limited effect in Virginia – for the time being. In the April 17 decision, which split the justices 5-4, the high court held that the natural breakdown of alcohol in the bloodstream does not automatically justify an [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/29/dui-case-could-have-impact-on-implied-consent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>U.S. justices question legality of warrantless DNA collection&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/supreme-court-questions-legality-of-warrantless-dna-collection/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/supreme-court-questions-legality-of-warrantless-dna-collection/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:23:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly Atkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72860</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WASHINGTON – As they grilled the lawyers arguing before them on the issue of whether police can collect DNA samples from unconvicted arrestees without a warrant, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged just how high the stakes are. “I think this is, perhaps, the most important criminal procedure case that this court has [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/27/supreme-court-questions-legality-of-warrantless-dna-collection/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Richmond airport case tests right of free speech&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/18/richmond-airport-case-tests-right-of-free-speech/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/18/richmond-airport-case-tests-right-of-free-speech/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:16:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dolan Media Newswires</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72733</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Let me tell you the true story of Aaron Tobey and his journey through the Richmond airport. He acted out a fantasy that many of us harbor. Whether he is to be praised or dismissed as a troublemaker I leave to you to decide. Tobey is a college student. He was flying from Richmond to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/18/richmond-airport-case-tests-right-of-free-speech/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Campaign Finance Law Partly Upheld&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/23/campaign-finance-law-partly-upheld/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/23/campaign-finance-law-partly-upheld/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:41:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Henry F. Floyd]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72155</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a challenge by plaintiff advocacy groups, the Center for Individual Freedom and West Virginians for Life, to the district court’s decision interpreting West Virginia’s statutory scheme to regulate advocacy groups’ spending in political campaigns, the 4th Circuit upholds the district court decision to strike periodicals from the definition of “electioneering communications” and upholds the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/23/campaign-finance-law-partly-upheld/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Homeowner’s ‘Screwed’ Sign Struck&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/23/homeowners-screwed-sign-struck/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/23/homeowners-screwed-sign-struck/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:39:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Albert Diaz]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72153</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A resident of Cary, N.C., loses his constitutional challenge to a local sign ordinance, cited by the town to demand removal of a sign painted on the resident’s house saying “Screwed by the Town of Cary”; the 4th Circuit reverses the district court decision for the resident, and says the Cary sign ordinance is content [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/23/homeowners-screwed-sign-struck/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court hears lawyer-blogger’s appeal&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/09/high-court-hears-lawyer-bloggers-appeal/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/09/high-court-hears-lawyer-bloggers-appeal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2013 18:54:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Cleo E. Powell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Cynthia D. Kinser]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice William C. Mims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lawyer Discipline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rules of Professional Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia State Bar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71840</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lawyer-blogger Horace Hunter faced the Supreme Court of Virginia Jan. 8 in the appeal of his disciplinary case, and he said anything he wrote about his clients’ cases is absolutely protected by the First Amendment. First Amendment scholar Rodney Smolla made the case by arguing that Hunter’s blog is not commercial speech, but political speech [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/09/high-court-hears-lawyer-bloggers-appeal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court reverses ban on Internet criticism&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/03/supreme-court-reverses-ban-on-internet-criticism/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/03/supreme-court-reverses-ban-on-internet-criticism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 20:25:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Vieth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fairfax County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Thomas A. Fortkort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71692</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court of Virginia acted swiftly last month to overturn a lower court’s takedown order directing a disgruntled consumer to remove critical online postings about a contractor. The high court vacated a Dec. 7 order from Fairfax Circuit Judge Thomas A. Fortkort ordering Jane Perez of Fairfax County to delete certain accusations about Dietz [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/03/supreme-court-reverses-ban-on-internet-criticism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Record-Sealing Case Transferred&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/25/court-record-sealing-case-transferred/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/25/court-record-sealing-case-transferred/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 15:56:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Walter S. Felton Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/25/court-record-sealing-case-transferred/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a newspaper’s appeal of a circuit court decision to remove original photographs and an autopsy report from the public record in a murder and felony child-neglect case, and to seal photocopies of certain exhibits retained in the court file, the Court of Appeals says it does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/25/court-record-sealing-case-transferred/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sign Ordinance is ‘Content Neutral’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/24/sign-ordinance-is-%e2%80%98content-neutral%e2%80%99/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/24/sign-ordinance-is-%e2%80%98content-neutral%e2%80%99/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 18:56:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Albert Diaz]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/24/sign-ordinance-is-%e2%80%98content-neutral%e2%80%99/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Arlington County sign ordinance that required a doggy daycare business to remove a 960-square foot painting of cartoon dogs on the side of the daycare’s business passes constitutional muster as a content-neutral restriction on speech that survives intermediate scrutiny, the 4th Circuit says. The county informed the daycare owner, Kim Houghton, that the painting [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/24/sign-ordinance-is-%e2%80%98content-neutral%e2%80%99/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Like’ on Facebook is not protected</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/04/%e2%80%98like%e2%80%99-on-facebook-is-not-protected/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/04/%e2%80%98like%e2%80%99-on-facebook-is-not-protected/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 12:53:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Raymond A. Jackson]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/04/%e2%80%98like%e2%80%99-on-facebook-is-not-protected/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Facebook “like” for a boss’s political opponent is not protected speech under the First Amendment, a federal judge in Newport News said last month. One “click of a button” on a Facebook page does not warrant constitutional protection under existing case law, the judge said, in a lawsuit over public employees’ free speech and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/05/04/%e2%80%98like%e2%80%99-on-facebook-is-not-protected/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
