Tammy Sutherland believed that a state law that declared 911 calls confidential if they didn't result in criminal charges meant what it said. So she believed the law would protect a recorded call from years earlier about her husband shooting a family computer as private and further believed that a federal law that prevented disclosure of her driving records would permit her to hold her husband's political opponents accountable for violating these privacy protections. In addition, that a "senior" judge would answer the challenge as to whether he maintained the Article III jurisdiction to hear her case. Recently the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear an appeal from the 8th Circuit in her case, Sutherland v. Massa.
GUEST COMMENTARY: Supreme Court not upholding equal justice under law
To read the full article, please sign up or login.
Get full access to the Columbia Missourian on your computer, phone, and tablet for just $5.95 per month.
* All the high-quality, in-depth journalism of the Columbia Missourian and Vox Magazine, updated 24/7
* Your news. Your device. Your time.
If you'd like to read more about the value of being a member, read this column from the Missourian's executive editor, Tom Warhover.