“Ten things to know about the Carter v. Canada case on assisted suicide”: Sean Fine of The Toronto Globe and Mail has an article that begins, “On Friday, the Supreme Court will rule on whether individuals who are suffering unbearably have a constitutional right to control their own death.”

When the Supreme Court of Canada issues its ruling in this case on Friday morning, I will provide a link to it.

“Who Doesn’t Love a Hotel Discount? The Taxman; Expedia could owe $847 million in unpaid hotel taxes.” Bloomberg News has this report. According to the article, “In coming weeks, Hawaii’s Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision in the biggest pending tax case.”

“If you solicit spam emails, you can’t sue for receiving them — 4th Circuit”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued yesterday.

“End the cameraphobia in the Supreme Court”: This editorial appears in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.

“Florida’s top court to decide if gay sex constitutes ‘intercourse'”: Reuters has this report.

The video of Wednesday’s oral argument in the Supreme Court of Florida can be viewed online, on demand via this link.

“Supreme Court Justice and Circuit Judges Give SLS Students Insider’s Look at Becoming a Judge”: Stanford Law School News has a report that begins, “A sterling reputation is the key driver of success for lawyers, agreed U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan and U.S. Circuit Judges Sri Srinivasan (JD/MBA ’95, BA ’89) and Raymond Kethledge during a conversation at Stanford Law School on Wednesday.”

“JPMorgan Seeks Review of ‘Seismic’ Ruling on GM Loan”: Linda Sandler of Bloomberg News has a report that begins, “JPMorgan Chase & Co. asked an appeals to reconsider a negative ruling on its $1.5 billion loan to General Motors Co.’s bankrupt predecessor, saying the decision caused a ‘seismic’ shift in the law.”

“Conviction of Australian at Guantanamo court in doubt”: The Associated Press has this report.

Earlier, at ProPublica, Raymond Bonner had an article headlined “U.S. Acknowledges Conviction of David Hicks, Guantanamo Detainee, Should Not Stand; Prosecutors acknowledge they accepted a guilty plea from an Australian man under a law that was passed after his alleged criminal conduct.” ProPublica has posted online a copy of the United State’s brief, which has not yet been officially released for public access.

Alycia Lane v. CBS Broadcasting and Larry Mendte decided today by the Pa. Superior Court: You can access today’s unpublished, non-precedential ruling of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania at this link.

Back in March 2013, Molly Eichel of The Philadelphia Daily News had an article about the trial court’s ruling headlined “Mendte fresh: Ex-CBS 3 anchor cleared in suit.”

“Supporters Say Imprisoned Nun Is Being Held In ‘Unfair’ Conditions”: Carrie Johnson had this audio segment, which included a comment from a retired federal appellate judge, on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“U.S. Supreme Court halts Texas execution of convicted killer”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has a report that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday put on hold the execution by Texas of convicted murderer Lester Bower as it considers whether to hear his full appeal including the assertion that his three decades on death row amount to cruel and unusual punishment.”

You can access today’s stay order of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

“Dying for a Conservative Cause: Republicans put liberty ahead of life.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Lethal Rejection: Will the Supreme Court’s Lethal Injection Review Kill the Death Penalty? The Supreme Court is reviewing lethal injection for the first time in seven years; Here’s what it means for the death penalty.” Annie Waldman of ProPublica has this report.

“Appeals Court Orders New Trial in Case Alleging Sexually Hostile Classroom”: Mark Walsh has this post today at the “School Law” blog of Education Week.

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s non-precedential Third Circuit ruling appears at this link.

I have decided to OPPOSE the word limit reduction on federal appellate briefs, plus an additional public comment opportunity for you: After much deliberation, I have decided to oppose the proposed amendment to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that would reduce the maximum size of a principal appellate brief from 14,000 to 12,500 words.

I will more fully (yet succinctly) explain the basis for my opposition in a public comment that I intend to submit online via this link on the afternoon of Tuesday, February 17, 2014 — the final day for the submission of public comments. Earlier public comments on this rule change proposal from particularly knowledgeable individuals indicate that the proffered motivation for this rule change is at best mistaken and at worst a subterfuge.

If federal appellate judges believe that appellate briefs ordinarily are unnecessarily long so as to pose a problem in need of correction, a variety of means exist to combat that problem. That is the debate that should be occurring right now over this proposal, which seeks to cure the supposed problem through the brute force equivalent of a bludgeon, inflicting damage far too widely.

That being said, I fully subscribe to the belief that shorter, more carefully focused appellate briefs tend to be far more powerful and effective than the alternative, and I believe that the examples of my own written appellate advocacy that I have posted online demonstrate that I have translated that belief into action. It is not unusual for appellate briefs that I file on behalf of my clients to be substantially shorter than the opposing parties’ briefs, and my clients have nonetheless prevailed in a significant number of those appeals, whether they were the appellant or the appellee.

In the preceding blog post, immediately below, I lamented the paucity of public comments that this word length reduction proposal has received. As President Lincoln is credited with saying, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt,” an observation that I defy (or perhaps confirm) here on a daily basis.

The method for offering public comments does not seem to encourage anonymous comments, and perhaps someone who fears that he or she lacks something truly profound to say or that no one might care to hear his or her views might be discouraged from adding his or her voice to the discussion. Therefore, in addition to offering my own public comment opposing this rule change proposal, I am willing to include as an addendum to my own comment the insightful comments both for and against the rule change proposal that readers of this blog wish to forward to me via email to this blog’s email address. In addition to your comment, please let me know whether I can include your name as the person who sent me the comment. I will gladly include all comments, with or without attribution as you request, that in my view meaningfully contribute to the conversation, whether or not they agree with my own views on this issue.

Only this morning, two new comments on the proposal have appeared online, one from the judges of the Tenth Circuit supporting the length reduction, and one from the general counsel of the EEOC opposing the length reduction.

New comments from the Los Angeles and New York City bar associations oppose reducing the word limit for principal appellate briefs from 14,000 to 12,500 words: You can access these newly submitted comments via this link.

The deadline for submitting comments on this proposal is 11:59 p.m. on Tuesday, February 17, 2015. Only 18 comments appear online thus far (and a few of those don’t even address the size reduction), suggesting either that appellate practitioners don’t care about the proposal, or not enough has been done to spread the word about the existence of this impending change, which will impose more than a ten percent reduction on the maximum permissible size of a party’s principal appellate brief.

“Canadian doctors drafting new rules in case doors open to assisted suicide”: The Toronto Globe and Mail has an article that begins, “If the Supreme Court of Canada takes the momentous step of striking down the law against assisted suicide on Friday, Canada’s medical profession intends to play a significant part in crafting the new rules that would govern how the gravely ill choose to die in this country.”

“Former Supreme Court justice’s civics program among MacArthur grant winners”: Julie Zauzmer of The Washington Post has this report.

“Jurisdiction stuffing as a means of combatting judicial supremacy”: Kevin C. Walsh has this post at “Mirror of Justice.”

“A Court of Review, or First View?” Richard M. Re has this post at “PrawfsBlawg.”

“Supreme Court Justice Scalia Is Focus of Arena Stage’s Political Drama The Originalist; Casting Announced”: Playbill has this report.

And TheaterMania.com reports that “Complete Casting Announced for Arena Stage’s The Originalist; John Strand’s world-premiere play offers a theatrical account of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.”

“The Supreme Court at Stake: Overturning Obamacare Would Change the Nature of the Supreme Court.” Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.