Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is raising red flags ahead of Facebook's proposed cryptocurrency launch.Marketsread more
Some White House officials expect the Cabinet secretary, who has known the president for years, to depart as soon as this summer.Politicsread more
David Marcus, the head of Facebook's digital currency project, said the company expects Libra will drive more advertising revenue for the company.Technologyread more
Epstein is accused of sexually exploiting dozens of underage girls from 2002 through 2005 at his New York and Florida residences. He is a former friend of Presidents Donald...Politicsread more
When you think of Prime Day, you might be thinking about deals on Instant Pots and Amazon Echo devices — not half-off dresses and designer heels. But the market for apparel...Retailread more
Amazon workers in Minnesota and Germany are striking as Prime Day kicks off, in a stand against working conditions and wage practices. The action in Minnesota represents the...Retailread more
The Food and Drug Administration "stands ready" to start reviewing e-cigarettes amid a teen vaping "epidemic," acting Commissioner Ned Sharpless said Monday in a statement.Health and Scienceread more
The Guggenheim CIO says he had been approached by the White House about possibly joining the Federal Reserve.The Fedread more
Joe Lonsdale says his fellow Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel was "courageous" for speaking out against Alphabet's Google.Technologyread more
Wall Street analysts say it is increasingly possible the Trump administration will try using a stronger weapon in the currency wars than just presidential tweets.Market Insiderread more
In his prepared testimony for Tuesday's Senate banking committee hearing, Facebook's David Marcus tells lawmakers that the Libra currency will be secure.Technologyread more
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a 40-foot cross commemorating fallen World War I soldiers can remain on public ground because it does not violate the Constitution's establishment clause that bars favoring one religion over others.
The case concerned a giant, early 20th century Latin cross, known as the Bladensburg Peace Cross, that stands in a Maryland intersection in the suburbs of the nation's capital. It was erected in 1925.
The cross was conceived as a memorial by mothers of men killed in World War I and is now maintained by a municipal agency that has spent just over $100,000 on the monument since the 1980s. That expenditure has raised questions about whether the cross violates the legal prohibition against excessive entanglement between religion and government, a murky area of constitutional law.
The challenge to the cross came from the American Humanist Association, an advocacy group that promotes secular governance.
The opinion of the court was authored by Justice Samuel Alito, who said the meaning of the cross was not limited to its religious context. The court's five conservatives as well as Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer agreed that the cross should remain on public land, while liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
"That the cross originated as a Christian symbol and retains that meaning in many contexts does not change the fact that the symbol took on an added secular meaning when used in World War I memorials," Alito wrote. "Not only did the Bladensburg Cross begin with this meaning, but with the passage of time, it has acquired historical importance."
And Alito cautioned against a government that "roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism."
In contrast, Ginsburg called the cross "the foremost symbol of the Christian faith."
"By maintaining the Peace Cross on a public highway, the Commission elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion," Ginsburg wrote in a dissent that was joined by Sotomayor.
Though the ultimate vote was 7-2, the case produced a smattering of opinions, with five justices writing separate concurrences to explain their thinking. Breyer, in a concurring opinion joined by Kagan, wrote that the case would be different if the cross had been erected recently.
"I see no reason to order this cross torn down simply because other crosses would raise constitutional concerns," Breyer wrote.
Arguments over the case in February were contentious.