“Ban on Prison Beards Violates Muslim Rights, Supreme Court Says”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court rules in favor of Arkansas Muslim inmate’s request to grow beard.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Muslim prisoner wins Supreme Court case to keep his beard.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court upholds religious rights of prisoners.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Rules for Muslim Inmate on Prison Beard; Unanimous Decision Says Religious-Freedom Law Permits Facial Hair.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.
Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Supreme Court sides with inmate, strikes down Arkansas prison beard ban.”
Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Unanimous Supreme Court affirms Muslim inmate’s right to grow beard.”
The Washington Times reports that “Gregory Holt, Muslim prisoner, wins Supreme Court OK to wear beard behind bars.”
Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court says Muslim prisoner can keep beard.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court rules for bearded Muslim inmate.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court rules for Muslim inmate over prison beard ban.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Prison Beard Ban Tossed as High Court Backs Religious Rights.”
On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Rules On 2 Prisoner Rights Cases.”
And at the “Democracy in America” blog of The Economist, Steven Mazie has a post titled “Religious liberty: Of beards and brevity.”
“Defending those accused of unthinkable crimes: The cases of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Jared Loughner, Whitey Bulger, and others demand a special breed of lawyer.” Scott Helman of The Boston Globe has this report.
“Off the Hook? The Supreme Court Won’t End the Gay Marriage Debate for Republicans.” Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.
“Issue on appeal: Did health-care reform rules hurt senator?” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Lawyers for U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson sought on Wednesday to revive the Wisconsin Republican’s challenge to the federal health care overhaul, arguing before an appellate panel that he was indeed harmed by executive rules associated with the legislation.”
And Courthouse News Service reports that “Senator’s Obamacare Case Goes Before the 7th.”
Earlier, The Washington Times previewed today’s oral argument in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in an article headlined “Ron Johnson hopes for a better outcome in round two of Obamacare lawsuit.”
The Seventh Circuit panel that heard today’s oral argument consisted of Circuit Judges Joel M. Flaum and Ann Claire Williams and Senior Circuit Judge William J. Bauer.
For whatever reason, the audio of today’s oral argument in this case is the only oral argument that occurred at the Seventh Circuit today that is not currently available online. Arguing for Senator Johnson was Paul D. Clement. Arguing for the federal government was Mark B. Stern.
“One by One, Protesters Interrupt Supreme Court”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Citizens United protesters disrupt Supreme Court session.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Protest on campaign spending disrupts Supreme Court.”
Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Activist Group Protests During Supreme Court Session for Second Time; 99Rise Protested the High Court’s 2010 Citizens United Campaign Finance Ruling.”
Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Demonstrators disrupt Supreme Court session.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Activists disrupt U.S. top court, denounce campaign spending ruling.”
David McLaughlin and Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News report that “Protesters Disrupt Supreme Court as Obama Criticizes Ruling.”
The Associated Press reports that “Protests over campaign finance during high court session.”
Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Protests break out in Supreme Court.”
Nina Totenberg of NPR has a report headlined “Shouts Of Protest At Supreme Court On ‘Citizens United’ Anniversary.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Mark Walsh has a post titled “View from the Courtroom: Disruption from the gallery on fifth anniversary of Citizens United.”
“The ‘Citizens United’ anniversary is a regrettable date for state courts”: Wallace Jefferson and Barbara Pariente have this op-ed in today’s edition of The Dallas Morning News.
“Judicial Indignity: The Supreme Court ponders judges’ freedom to panhandle.” Mark Joseph Stern has this Supreme Court dispatch online today at Slate.
“At UF, Stevens still sharp in criticism of Citizens United decision”: This front page article appears in today’s edition of The Gainesville Sun.
Programming note: At noon today, I will be at the National Constitution Center to attend a presentation by Second Circuit Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann on interpreting the law of Congress. After his talk, Chief Judge Katzmann will be signing copies of his new book — “Judging Statutes” — which will be available for purchase.
Additional posts will appear here later today.
Update: Via YouTube, you can view the video of today’s National Constitution Center event at this link. The second audience question was from yours truly. It was great to visit both with the speaker and with NCC President and Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Rosen following the event.
Access online today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued three rulings in argued cases.
1. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, No. 13-1211.
2. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp., No. 13-1174.
3. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean, No. 13-894. Justice Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joined.
“Supreme Court Sides With Teva in Patent Case; High Court Reverses Ruling That Invalidated Patent on Multiple-Sclerosis Drug”: Brent Kendall and Ashby Jones have this article in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal. You can access the full text of the article via Google. And at WSJ.com’s “Pharmalot” blog, Ed Silverman has a post titled “A Court Ruling Gives Teva how Much Time to Avoid Generic Copaxone?”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court rules for Teva over MS drug patent.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Teva Wins U.S. High Court Ruling to Delay Copaxone Rivals.”
Sam Hananel of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court sides with Teva in drug dispute.”
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that “Mylan loses Supreme Court fight over multiple sclerosis drug.”
The “PhillyPharma” blog of The Philadelphia Inquirer, David Sell has a post titled “With local impact on both sides, Supreme Court sides with Teva in drug dispute.”
The Hill reports that “Supreme Court sides with name brand drug company.”
Jeff John Roberts of Gigaom reports that “Supreme Court strips more power from controversial patent court.”
And at his “Patently-O” blog, Dennis Crouch has posts titled “Teva v. Sandoz: Partial Deference in Claim Construction” and “Giving Deference to the Supreme Court in Teva v. Sandoz.”
“Supreme Court may weaken housing bias cases”: Sam Hananel of The Associated Press has this report.
