Though she "did seem to get it," when lawyers for California and the games industry were arguing before the Supreme Court, we weren't sure that Justice Elena Kagan, or justice, played any video games before their landmark Brown vs. EMA decision in 2011. Actually, they did. "It was kind of hilarious," she told the AP.

Justice Elena Kagan [back row, far right], whom Stephen Totilo said "did seem to get it" during oral arguments in Brown v. EMA, called the case the most difficult of the Court's most recent term, one in which she felt she was constantly in the wrong no matter her current state of mind.

In this essay originally penned for First Things, Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput discusses the recent Supreme Court decision that granted video games First Amendment protection. Opening with his memories of the 1999 Columbine High School shooting, Chaput is clearly against the decision.

Most of the time, a Supreme Court ruling has its intended effect of being the final word on laws, be they good or bad. On some issues, you can count on the defeated side looking for a way around the decision. The Utah state legislator behind an anti-games bill says he won't pursue it in light of Monday's high court…

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors was unconstitutional. You may have read about that decision and the arguments for and against the ruling. Would you like to see it crudely animated?

Justice of the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia defends the Supreme Court's decision to keep violent video games in the hands of California gamers based on the First Amendment.

When the mainstream debate turns to violent video games, it's inevitable that someone will dredge up Postal. It's like the triple dog dare, or comparing someone to Hitler, a completely bogus trump card with no real argumentative value.

Bots. Like it or not, they're part of online games like World of Warcraft. A U.S. court ruled on the legality of one particular popular and profitable bot.

On November 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association and Entertainment Software Association. This is a landmark case for gaming and the court, and gamers can stand up for what the believe in.

This year marks the first anniversary of a Supreme Court fantasy league that a recent law school graduate from Virginia is running online. Participants try to accurately guess all nine justices' votes, collecting badges and achievements for their performance.

With Supreme Court arguments over the California game law beginning next month, the Video Game Voters Network has devised a way of showing the law's author Senator Leland Yee your support for the First Amendment: Mail him your used controllers.

Yesterday evening saw the filing deadline for supporting briefs in Schwarzenegger vs. Entertainment Merchants Association - the Supreme Court case involving a California statute restricting the sale or rental of violent video game sales. Nine states oppose the law.

As the entertainment industry rallies against the controversial California video game law, the Colorado State Board of Education issues a call for the state to support the law, calling violent video games a potentially harmful activity like gambling.

Booksellers, publishers, and authors along with the recording, advertising, arcade, and comic book industries rally against the California violent video game law in the name of all media.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor recently spoke a word of charity for video games, telling ABC News in an interview that the medium's a "fabulous" way to get children to learn.

Jack Thompson's appeal of his enhanced disbarment from the Florida Bar hit a bit of a snag on Monday, as the Supreme Court refused to hear his case.

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court considered ex-lawyer-mans Jack Thompson's request to help him get back to current lawyer-mans land. It's not expected to get very far.