Wednesday, January 19, 2011
"Reach Out and Touch Someone: FCC v. AT&T reveals the limits of corporate personhood at the Supreme Court." Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.
Posted at 08:22 PM by Howard Bashman
"Relatives Can Sue Over Morphed Child Porn Pix; Expert who broke federal child porn laws may also be sued for civil damages": Mark Kernes of AVN News has this report.
And The Associated Press reports that "Ohio appeals court rules in fake child porn case."
"Court hears gay dads' La. birth certificate case": The Associated Press has this report on today's en banc reargument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. You can access the oral argument audio via this link (30.2MB Windows Media Audio file).
"U.S. Appeals Ruling Striking Down Obama's Health Law": Bloomberg News has a report that begins, "The U.S. asked a federal appeals court to overturn a Virginia judge's ruling that the Obama administration's health-care overhaul is unconstitutional because it requires some Americans to buy insurance."
Posted at 02:17 PM by Howard Bashman
"Justices Uphold Background Checks": Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined "Supreme Court limits privacy rights of federal contract workers; Ruling on a lawsuit brought by researchers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the court upholds the personal background checks required of thousands of people who work under government contracts."
Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press reports that "Court says NASA background checks can continue."
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that "Privacy Rights of U.S. Workers Curbed by Supreme Court in Contractor Case."
And James Vicini of Reuters reports that "Supreme Court upholds NASA employee background checks."
Update: At "SCOTUSblog," Lyle Denniston has a post titled "Constitutional issue left open: The Court refuses to clarify whether the Constitution does, in fact, protect individuals from disclosure by the government of information about their private lives; It goes on to uphold background checks for employees of government contractors."
"High court hears case on corporate privacy": Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.
And at "SCOTUSblog," Lyle Denniston has a post titled "Argument recap: Losing on a privacy claim? The concept of 'personal privacy' for corporations found next to no support from the bench as the Court heard an appeal on the scope of the Freedom of Information Act."
"Tucson Video Shows Judge Saving Other Victim": The Wall Street Journal has this news update.
Posted at 01:54 PM by Howard Bashman
Sixth Circuit reinstates civil lawsuit seeking damages against attorney who downloaded images of children from a stock photo website, digitally "morphed" them into pornography, then used the images to help his clients resist child pornography charges: Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton today issued this interesting opinion on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
"U.S. Supreme Court to take Medi-Cal lawsuit case": Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.
The Los Angeles Times reports today that "U.S. Supreme Court to decide if California can cut payments to Medi-Cal providers; Justices will decide whether to allow the cash-strapped state to reduce what it pays to doctors, hospitals and other providers of healthcare for the poor."
And Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers reports that "Supreme Court takes on states' plans to cut Medicaid payments."
"UT admission policy upheld; Court that banned use of race now cites Supreme Court case": This article appears today in The Austin American-Statesman.
Reuters reports that "Appeals court upholds University of Texas over race admissions."
The Associated Press reports that "Court upholds UT Austin admissions standards."
At the "School Law" blog of Education Week, Mike Walsh has a post titled "Appeals Court Upholds Use of Race in Texas Admissions."
And at the blog "First One @ One First," Mike Sacks has a post titled "Is the End Near for Affirmative Action?"
"Friends of the Court?" Today's edition of The New York Times contains an editorial that begins, "The Roberts court is hearing a larger share of cases about economic activities that matter to big business than the Rehnquist court before it."
Posted at 10:26 AM by Howard Bashman
"Court hears gay dads' La. birth certificate case": The Associated Press has this report on a case that will be reargued en banc today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. I will link to the oral argument audio recording when the court posts it online.
Meanwhile, in somewhat related news, The New York Times reports today that "Parenting by Gays More Common in the South, Census Shows."
Access online today's rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: In the first decision announced today, Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in NASA v. Nelson, No. 09-530. You can access the oral argument via this link. The Chief Justice and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor joined in the opinion of the Court. Justice Antonin Scalia issued an opinion concurring in the judgment in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined. Justice Thomas also issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Justice Elena Kagan did not participate.
In the second decision announced today, Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court in Harrington v. Richter, No. 09-587. You can access the oral argument via this link. The Chief Justice and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor joined in the opinion of the Court. Justice Ginsburg issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Justice Kagan did not participate.
And in the third and final decision issued today, Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court in Premo v. Moore, No. 09-658. You can access the oral argument via this link.The Chief Justice and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor joined in the opinion of the Court. Justice Ginsburg issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Justice Kagan did not participate.