How Appealing



Thursday, February 19, 2015

“Supreme Court to hear case of a headscarf that cost a Muslim teen a job”: Lauren Markoe of Religion News Service has this report today.

Posted at 10:44 PM by Howard Bashman



“Crossbow OK for felon, but Supreme Court to rule on rest of arsenal”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau has this report today.

Posted at 10:40 PM by Howard Bashman



“The Supreme Court’s new chance to remake insider-trading law”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight had this report today.

Posted at 10:35 PM by Howard Bashman



“Judge Hanen’s Flawed Ruling: He didn’t get to the heart of the problem with the Obama amnesty.” Law professor John Yoo has this essay online today at National Review.

Posted at 8:45 PM by Howard Bashman



“Philly DA sues Wolf over death penalty moratorium”: Steve Esack has this front page article in today’s edition of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania.

Today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer contains an article headlined “Phila. D.A. seeks to overturn Wolf’s death-penalty moratorium.”

Today’s edition of The Philadelphia Daily News reports that “D.A. seeks to overturn Wolf’s death-penalty ban.”

And Reuters reports that “Prosecutor moves to halt Pennsylvania governor’s death row reprieve.”

You can access at this link the emergency King’s Bench petition that the Philadelphia District Attorney filed yesterday in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Posted at 1:52 PM by Howard Bashman



“Sex crime ruling a tough test for Brown’s high court appointees”: Bob Egelko had this article in Tuesday’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle.

You can freely access the full text of the article via Google News.

Posted at 1:40 PM by Howard Bashman



“Is There a Silver Lining in Judge Hanen’s Injunction Against the Obama Immigration Policy?” Michael Dorf had this post Tuesday at “Dorf on Law.”

Posted at 12:04 PM by Howard Bashman



Judicial handshakes — “A New Practice at the Third Circuit?” Bruce D. Greenberg has this post at his “New Jersey Appellate Law” blog.

As news reports (see here and here) recently confirmed, a judicial fist bump might be the most hygienic post-argument form of greeting from the bench, although judicial high-fives could present an appropriate compromise solution.

Barring that, the Third Circuit‘s security screening does in my experience permit members of the public to bring small bottles of hand sanitizer into the courthouse. In this especially dangerous cold and flu season, that would seem to be good practice regardless of whether an oral argument wraps up with hugs and kisses, a handshake, or the more commonly experienced resolution of “don’t call us, we’ll call you.”

Posted at 11:27 AM by Howard Bashman



“‘Moldy’ washer class to 6th Circuit: Jury verdict was tainted.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight had this report on Tuesday.

Posted at 10:42 AM by Howard Bashman



“What Are 30 Years Worth? In the case of this wrongfully convicted man, Louisiana says $0.00.” Andrew Cohen has this essay online today at The Marshall Project.

Posted at 10:40 AM by Howard Bashman



“Constitution Check: Is the President’s new immigration policy already a constitutional dead letter?” Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

Posted at 10:33 AM by Howard Bashman



What’s next in the battle over the proposed FRAP briefing word limit reductions? Although the public comment period concluded on Tuesday, that is merely one step in an ongoing process.

A public hearing to consider these and other amendments that had been scheduled for Tuesday in Washington, D.C. was postponed (scroll down) due to weather, and a replacement date has yet to be announced. I was not planning to speak at that public hearing, because I have the ability to communicate to the decision-makers whenever I choose via this blog (and because I have already said everything that currently needs to be said in my numerous earlier posts on this blog and in my actual public comment submitted of record). Sometimes more than just one public hearing will occur on FRAP amendments, allowing interested people in other parts of the country to more conveniently appear and be heard.

Once the public hearing or hearings occur, the pending proposed FRAP amendments will receive further consideration in the assigned rules committee. Those committees meet in public, although it is not common for many observers to show up uninvited. If that meeting occurs reasonably close to me, I would hope to attend, schedule permitting. If I can’t attend, I will of course report on what happens based on second-hand accounts.

I realize that through dint of hard work this blog provides me with an opportunity to communicate directly with the appellate community in the United States to some extent. In that regard, I very much appreciate the sentiments of those readers who have emailed or telephoned to communicate to me their thanks for helping to draw attention to the FRAP word limit reduction proposal and helping to motivate the impressive opposition that the proposal has received. At the same time, everyone should recognize that no one else is opposing the word limit reduction proposal simply because I think it is a bad idea. Rather, the reason the word limit reduction proposal has elicited so much well-reasoned and deeply felt opposition from so many is that, on its merits, the proposal is a very, very bad idea.

Posted at 10:20 AM by Howard Bashman



“As Health Exchange Sign-Ups Rise, So Do Stakes for Supreme Court”: Robert Pear has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Posted at 8:29 AM by Howard Bashman



“The Six Horsemen (of the Apocalypse)”: Today at his “Balls & Strikes” blog, Calvin TerBeek has a post that begins, “Actuarially speaking, there are four justices on the Court that the next president might replace: Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy.”

Posted at 8:09 AM by Howard Bashman



“Groundhog Day at the Supreme Court: Will the Supreme Court Consider Affirmative Action Again?” Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

Posted at 8:04 AM by Howard Bashman