The US Supreme court has ruled that Americans can legally use their government phone to call their elected officials and other federal employees without a government-issued warrant, according to the Associated Press.

The decision by the conservative justices, in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, could have huge ramifications for the way Americans communicate with their federal government, which is dominated by conservative activists and law enforcement.

The ruling means that Americans who use their phones to make phone calls to members of the federal government are allowed to do so without the government’s permission.

It also means that citizens in other countries, such as the UK, can legally call their local police to report a crime.

The case is now in a lengthy and closely watched process, with more than a dozen judges from the three liberal-leaning justices in the court hearing arguments in the case on Monday.

The opinion came after an appeals court in Hawaii rejected a bid by the Trump administration to block the ruling, saying it violates a 2008 decision that had already been ruled on by the Supreme Court.

While the AP says it is still waiting for a decision from the full Supreme Court, the ruling is significant for many reasons.

The court said it “does not believe that the Constitution or laws of the United States are unconstitutional.”

The ruling was made to clarify what exactly the government is required to do with citizens’ phones.

“It seems to me that a citizen’s phone is not a private property, it is a public asset,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her opinion.

“And the Government’s property must be protected from invasion and destruction by law.”

This ruling means the government must comply with a law or regulation that governs the use of the phone, and that law or regulations may include requirements that require it to obtain a warrant before it can listen to a phone call, read messages, or record audio.

The AP also reports that the court said there is no legal precedent that requires a warrant for the government to access a phone.

However, the justices wrote that a warrant may be required for an individual who wants to call a friend or colleague who has been a federal employee.

In other words, if a government official wants to know who your friend or boss is or what your boss has been doing, that individual may be allowed to make that call without a warrant.

It is not clear whether the government would need to seek a warrant if it wanted to listen to phone calls from people who are not employees of the agency or its contractors.

The phone service providers are not required to obtain warrants to listen in to conversations, but if they do, it may be more difficult for them to find them, the AP reported.

This is not the first time that the Supreme House has considered the use or regulation of phone calls.

The majority of the justices also decided in 2009 that it would be unconstitutional for the federal agencies to require that the government obtain a search warrant before using data about Americans from third parties.

This ruling, which was upheld by the full court, was also overturned by the court, which said that Congress had given the federal courts authority to determine whether a search or seizure was illegal.

The Supreme Court has also ruled in the past that a police officer may listen to your phone call even if he has no reason to believe that you are guilty of a crime, as long as it was reasonable for the officer to assume that you were.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Tags: Categories: Quote