In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush Administration authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on American citizens and others without a warrant. Congress officially legalized this once-secret program with the passage of the 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but civil libertarians claim that warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has just agreed to hear a case on this very issue. Adam Liptak, Supreme Court correspondent for our partner The New York Times, explains what's at stake.

Every Friday, The Takeaway convenes a panel to look back at the week's big stories. This week, we'll hear more about Arizona v. U.S., the case that will determine the constitutionality of Arizona's immigration law, known as SB 1070. James and Rupert Murdoch both testified before a British inquiry into media ethics, our partner The New York Times published a comprehensive investigation into Walmart's practices in Mexico, and the campaign finance case against former Senator John Edwards began in North Carolina. Farai Chideya, journalist and Fellow at Harvard University's Institute of Politics, and Paddy O’Connell host of the BBC’s Broadcasting House program, explain the news of the week.

In the run-up to this years presidential election, campaign speeches, political analysis, and polls always dominate the headlines.  But this year, the Supreme Court will be making big news too.  With major rulings expected on President Obama's health care law and SB1070, Arizona's contentious immigration law, the Supreme Court's positions are likely to sharply influence voter's perceptions on the role of government. Amy Howe, editor of SCOTUSblog explains how the Supreme Court's upcoming decisions could be game-changers this election.

Fresh off hearing oral arguments for and against President Obama’s health care overhaul, the Supreme Court is stepping back into the political spotlight. Today, the high court will consider the legality of Arizona’s tough crackdown on illegal immigrants. Jeffrey Rosen, professor of law at George Washington University, talks about the major legal implications of SCOTUS' coming ruling. 

In March, the Supreme Court heard one of the most widely anticipated cases of this term. In two related cases, Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs, human rights attorney Bryan Stevenson argued that sentencing minors to life in prison without parole is cruel and unusual punishment. Stevenson, the executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative has long dedicated his life to the injustices he sees in America's justice system, especially along racial and socioeconomic lines. Stevenson talks about his work and his commitment to challenging racial discrimination in the criminal justice system.

Yesterday Attorney General Eric Holder issued a memo, assuring the Supreme Court that President Obama respects the authority of the court to overturn federal laws they find unconstitutional. This memo came after Republican challengers to the Affordable Care Act accused the President of pressuring the Court during deliberations. We discuss the controversy with Jeffrey Rosen, Professor of Law at George Washington University, and Todd Zwillich, Takeaway Washington correspondent.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that authorities may strip-search people arrested for any offense — no matter how minor — before they are admitted to jail. In Florence v. County of Burlington, Albert Florence argued that he was subjected to humiliating strip searches after he was mistakenly arrested in 2005. However, according to the court's majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the need to protect the safety of prison inmates justifies the use of "thorough searches at intake for disease, gang affiliation, and contraband" by correctional officials. Anita Allen, professor of law and philosophy at University of Pennsylvania explains how the court reached its decision.

This week, the big players in American democracy, media players, candidates, politicians, even passionate voters got a lesson in intelligent civic democracy from the quiet intensity of measured debate and smart talk from nine justices and a couple of top notch lawyers. John Hockenberry reflects on the week of debates in the Supreme Court. It wasn't just about the health care law this week, argues Hockenberry. It was the way the Court handled the issue – regardless of your political persuasion. The court made a real point about the value of a civic space free of noise and full of intelligence.

In the biggest Supreme Court cases, Justice Anthony Kennedy, more often that not, is the key swing vote. As the Supreme Court deliberates over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, once again all eyes are on Justice Kennedy. Adam Liptak is the Supreme Court Correspondent for The New York Times.

Today the Supreme Court will hear the final round of arguments on President Obama's Affordable Care Act. While 26 states joined the lawsuit against health care reform, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi filed the original suit, and Florida is the lead plaintiff in the case. And in the midst of what Attorney General Bondi has called "one of the biggest cases of our lifetime," she is also leading an investigation into the Trayvon Martin case in Sanford, Florida.

All this week, the Supreme Court has heard arguments on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. The centerpiece of President Obama's health care reform legislation — and the focus of the debate at the Court — is the individual mandate, which requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. The Court won't issue a ruling until June, but if they do declare the mandate unconstitutional, how much of a real difference will it make for you and your health care?

Yesterday was the second of three days of hearings in the Supreme Court's review of Obama’s Affordable Care Act. The session was devoted to one key question: Is Congress overstepping its Constitutional power by requiring nearly all Americans to carry health insurance? Jeffrey Rosen is back to break it all down for us, and to give us a preview of what will happen in today’s third and final day of hearings. Rosen is professor of law at George Washington University, and he’s been following the arguments closely. He joins us from Washington, D.C.

The case against the Affordable Care Act currently being heard by the Supreme Court was brought by 26 states. Ohio is one of those states, and in Ohio, disapproval of the health care law runs deep. Last fall, Ohio voters amended the state constitution to say that no federal or state law will require any person, company or health care provider to participate in a health care system. Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine explains why he joined the suit against the Affordable Care Act.

All this week, we're talking about Department of Health and Human Services vs. Florida, the health care case at the Supreme Court. Today the Court will hear arguments on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires Americans to purchase health insurance. Failure to purchase health insurance could result in a fine. We've heard from constitutional scholars and economists for their take on health care reform and the individual mandate, and today we turn to three doctors this morning who have very different perspectives on the individual mandate. 

The Supreme Court will hear a challenge to President Obama’s healthcare law today, kicking off a three-day proceeding. The Affordable Care Act mandates an expansion of health insurance to 30 million more Americans within a decade, as well as for the ire it has roused in Republican lawmakers and citizens, alike. To look ahead to next three days of health care debate and discussion, Jeffrey Rosen, professor of law at George Washington University, joins us.

Todd Zwillich, Takeaway Washington correspondent and Charlie Herman, business and economics editor for The Takeaway look at the stories coming up in the week ahead, including the Supreme Court hearings about health care legislation, President Obama's meetings in South Korea and the Conference Board Confidence Index and the Michigan Consumer Sentiment reports slated to come out this week.

The Supreme Court begins three days of oral arguments today on the constitutionality of President Obama's health care overhaul. People lined up outside the Supreme Court building in Washington beginning on Friday hoping to get the chance to see the proceedings today. Kathie McClure is a trial lawyer from Atlanta, Georgia, and Reverend Rob Schenck is the President of the National Clergy Council, a network of pastors and denominational leaders.

Next week the Supreme Court will hear Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, the case that will decide the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, or health insurance reform. The case includes a number of questions about states' rights, federal jurisdiction, and individual liberty. In addition, it shines a spotlight on the institution that will decide the constitutionality of President Obama's signature legislation. 

All this week, The Takeaway is talking about incarceration in America. We’ll talk with experts, advocates and former prisoners about the issues they’re facing, behind bars and outside the prison walls. Today we're focusing on juvenile justice.

Using the 14th amendment as their basis, many courts have treated corporations as people. Usually these rulings are beneficial to corporations and their larger interests, such as in the Supreme Court decision that allows corporations to endorse candidates like individuals. However, a new case will determine whether or not a corporation can be convicted as an accomplice to a crime against humanity. In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, Royal Dutch Petroleum and its subsidiary, Shell, are accused of aiding an autocratic regime that brutalized minorities in an oil-rich region of Nigeria.