“Oregon Supreme Court to decide circumcision case Friday”: The Oregonian provides a news update that begins, “A divorce dispute over whether to circumcise a 12-year-old boy will be decided Friday by the Oregon Supreme Court. The nationally-watched case pits a father who converted to Judaism and wants his son to undergo the religious ritual, against his mother, an orthodox Christian who claims the boy doesn’t want to be circumcised.” The decision should be available online by noon eastern time on Friday.
“School Board tries to recover ‘Bong Hits’ court fees”: Today’s edition of The Juneau Empire contains an article that begins, “A lawyer representing the former local high school student whose ‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ banner unfurled a lengthy free speech debate is accusing the attorney for the Juneau School Board of harassing his client over a $5,000 legal bill. Douglas Mertz said the board’s lawyer is trying to force his client, Joseph Frederick, to leave his job in China to face a February deposition in Juneau regarding his personal finances.”
In news from Texas: The Associated Press provides reports headlined “Lawyer wants to erase charges against Texas Supreme Court justice” and “Group files ethics complaints against justices Hecht, Medina.”
“State Supreme Court OKs new rule protecting journalists’ sources”: The Salt Lake Tribune provides a news update that begins, “The Utah Supreme Court has adopted one of the strongest rules in the nation allowing reporters to refuse to identify confidential sources.”
And Geoffrey Fattah of The Deseret Morning News has a news update headlined “Utah moves to adopt first reporter’s shield rule.”
“Court to rehear Massey case”: The West Virginia Record provides a report that begins, “In a unanimous vote Thursday, the Justices of the state’s Supreme Court of Appeals decided to reconsider their ruling in a controversial case.”
And The Associated Press reports that “In wake of photos, recusal, Supreme Court to rehear Massey case.”
“Judge Rejects Patriot Act Challenge”: From Connecticut, The AP provides a report that begins, “A federal judge rejected a former sailor’s claim Thursday that the government illegally intercepted phone calls and obtained e-mails it is using against him in a terrorism-support case. Hassan Abu-Jihaad’s attorneys had claimed elements of the USA Patriot Act used to obtain the evidence were unconstitutional, and cited a ruling by a federal judge in Oregon striking down key portions of the law. U.S. District Court Judge Mark Kravitz, however, said he disagreed with that ruling, and noted that other courts have found that the law does not infringe on constitutional rights.”
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut at this link.
“Senate Rejects Secret Court Measure”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The Senate on Thursday rejected an attempt to expand a secret court’s oversight of government eavesdropping, sticking instead with a surveillance bill favored by the White House.”
In today’s mail: The book “Solo by Choice,” by Carolyn Elefant, author of the newly redesigned “My Shingle” blog. It seems that I’m mentioned on page 175.
“Surprise! The Times Attacks the Messenger; Linda Greenhouse is conflicted, so obviously the problem is Ed Whelan.” Andrew C. McCarthy has this essay today at National Review Online.
Ninth Circuit’s “superseding opinion” in baseball steroids probe turns out to be, at least at the outset, too complicated for The Associated Press to understand: A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this order and superseding opinion today.
The AP, reporting on today’s development in an article headlined “Appeals court to reconsider baseball order,” overlooks the fact that today’s Ninth Circuit action not only vacates that court’s earlier decision, but it also replaces it with a brand new decision. Indeed, that article even goes so far as to say that “The 9th Circuit did not set a timetable for reconsidering the case.” Perhaps that’s because the reconsideration, such as it was, has already occurred.
Update: I’m pleased to report that The AP has rewritten its coverage to take into account that the Ninth Circuit in fact issued a new ruling on the matter today. The AP’s updated coverage is headlined “Court Affirms Access to Player Drug Data.”
“Workers can be fired for using medical pot, state Supreme Court rules”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update that begins, “An employee who uses medical marijuana at home can be fired for testing positive for the drug at work, the California Supreme Court ruled today. In a 5-2 decision, the court said Proposition 215, the 1996 state initiative that allowed Californians to use marijuana for medical purposes with a doctor’s recommendation, did not protect workers from dismissal for violating federal drug laws.”
And The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Calif. Court: Medical Pot Not OK at Work.”
You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of California at this link.
Supreme Court of the State of Washington holds that the crime of “attempted first degree felony murder” does not exist: According to today’s unanimous ruling, “It follows that a charge of attempted felony murder is illogical in that it burdens the State with the necessity of proving that the defendant intended to commit a crime that does not have an element of intent.”
After dying, would you prefer to be buried with your brain? Chances are that you wouldn’t miss it very much. Nevertheless, that is the question presented in a case argued yesterday before the Supreme Court of Ohio. I previewed the oral argument in this post from yesterday morning.
In coverage of yesterday’s oral argument, The Dayton Daily News reports today that “Justices hear case about rights to organs after autopsy; The dispute stems from a 2001 drowning when the family realized they couldn’t claim the man’s brain.”
The Columbus Dispatch reports today that “Justices to decide rights to organs; Parties argue case on control of body parts after autopsy.”
The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that “Suit could change how coroners work; High court examines autopsy rules.”
And The Cincinnati Enquirer contains an article headlined “Who owns removed body parts?”
You can view yesterday’s appellate oral argument online, on-demand by clicking here (RealPlayer required).
Reefer employment-termination litigation madness on the horizon in California? The Supreme Court of California has announced that in just under two hours from now, the court will issue its ruling in Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc.
The case presents the following question:
When a person who is authorized to use marijuana for medical purposes under the California Compassionate Use Act is discharged from employment on the basis of his or her off-duty use of marijuana, does the employee have either a claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act for unlawful discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, or a common law tort claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy?
The court plans to make the ruling available online via this link at 1 p.m. eastern time.
Something fishy with the majority’s approach to this case? If an employment agency for nurses enters into an agreement with those nurses forbidding them from working overtime, must the employment agency nevertheless pay enhanced overtime wages to nurses who work overtime in breach of that agreement with the agency?
This question lurks in the background of an interesting ruling that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.
In his separate opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs writes, “The justification offered by the majority opinion is that ‘application of the Tennessee Coal test to the facts of this case is something of a red herring.’ I do not find this ichthyological approach useful.” A quick Westlaw search reveals that Senior First Circuit Judge Bruce M. Selya hasn’t used the word ichthyology in a published opinion since 1994.
“Senate Opens Debate On Wiretap Measure; Telephone Company Immunity at Issue”: Dan Eggen has this article today in The Washington Post.
“In Taxing Illegal Drugs, the Trouble Comes in Collecting”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
“Bonds’ lawyers ask judge to trim indictment”: The San Francisco Chronicle today contains an article that begins, “Lawyers for Barry Bonds asked a federal judge Wednesday to dismiss part of his perjury indictment, saying prosecutors had asked the former Giants slugger ‘fundamentally ambiguous’ questions when he testified before the grand jury investigating the BALCO steroids scandal.”
“IRS agents continue to testify in Wesley Snipes’ tax trial”: The Ocala Star-Banner contains this article today, along with an article headlined “Courts don’t buy the ‘861 argument.’”
And The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel today contains an article headlined “Famous client, local lawyer; Milwaukee attorney defends actor in tax evasion charges.”
“Ryan lawyers take appeal fight to U.S. Supreme Court; Lawyers file petition to overturn conviction”: This article appears today in The Chicago Tribune.
“Duquesne professor a top contender for state court vacancy”: The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review today contains an article that begins, “Duquesne University law professor Ken Gormley and Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Eugene Scanlon are among those being considered for interim appointments to the state Supreme and Superior courts.”
And The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports today that “Local man in running for seats on state courts.”
“3rd justice draws criticism for trips; Facing ethics complaint, Hecht defends flights charged to his campaign account”: This article appears today in The Houston Chronicle. Another article reports that “Jurors disbanded in Medina case want to offer evidence.” And the newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Looks matter: Ethics issues involving Texas justices have put a cloud over top judicial panels.”
The San Antonio Express-News reports today that “Texas Supreme Court justice defends spending for travel.”
Texas Lawyer reports that “Grand Jury That Indicted Texas Justice, Wife Not Properly Empaneled.”
And in The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, columnist Linda P. Campbell has an op-ed entitled “As the Texas Supreme Court turns.”
“The Supreme Court’s Recent Opinion in New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres: A Wise Decision to Stop Meddling in the States’ Primary Systems.” Marci A. Hamilton has this essay online today at FindLaw.
