“Former trooper fired for KKK ties to argue for job back”: The Omaha World-Herald today contains an article that begins, “Nebraska’s public policy against racism should bar reinstating a state trooper who joined a group affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan, a state attorney told the Nebraska Supreme Court on Tuesday. Private citizens are free to think what they want and free to join racist groups, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Stine told the court. But the state has the right to set terms of employment for state troopers.”
And The Associated Press provides this report on yesterday’s oral argument.
Yesterday, the Office of the Attorney General of Nebraska issued a news release headlined “Attorney General’s Office Presents Oral Arguments in Former Trooper Tied to KKK Case.”
“District of Columbia Makes Last Pitch Before Supreme Court Appearance in Gun Ban Case”: The Associated Press provides this report.
“State court to revisit definition of school threat; Student convicted in 2005 claims his actions were not terrorism; prosecutor says planning attack also counts”: The Detroit News today contains an article that begins, “The Michigan Supreme Court today is expected to review whether Andrew Osantowski committed an act of terrorism when he threatened a Columbine-style massacre at his high school.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Michigan Supreme Court weighs if terrorism includes threats.”
“Scalia brings wit, originalist views to Missouri”: This article appears today in The Columbia (Mo.) Daily Tribune.
The Kansas City Star reports today that “Scalia criticizes ‘living Constitution.’”
And The Muleskinner of The University of Central Missouri reports that “Justice Scalia says Constitution isn’t a ‘living’ document; must be interpreted as framers intended.”
“Big Business’s Big Term: Victories for the Chamber of Commerce at the Supreme Court.” Doug Kendall has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
The Associated Press is reporting: An article headlined “Court Skeptical of Passenger Rights Law” begins, “A federal appeals panel seemed impatient Wednesday with arguments supporting the first law in the nation requiring airlines to provide food, water, clean toilets and fresh air to passengers trapped in a plane delayed on the ground.” The case was argued today before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
And in other news, “Judge Wants to Resolve Indian Lands Case.”
“The Failure of Bowles v. Russell”: Law Professor Scott Dodson has posted this article (abstract with links for download) at SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“).
“GOP planning for new battle on nominees”: The Hill today contains an article that begins, “Senate Republicans plan to take a more confrontational approach with Democrats on judicial nominees, hoping parliamentary tactics and the bully pulpit of their presidential nominee will break a logjam over the politically volatile issue.”
And Politico.com has an article headlined “Nominations staredown in the Senate.”
The District of Columbia has today filed its reply brief in the Second Amendment case now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court: Via “SCOTUSblog,” you can access the reply brief at this link.
“In Case That Could Well Be Taken Up by the Supreme Court, Sixth Circuit Rejects Rule Limiting Basis for Payments to Initiative Circulators”: Law Professor Rick Hasen has this post at his newly redesigned “Election Law” blog.
My earlier coverage of today’s Sixth Circuit ruling appears at this link.
Thirteen million page views: According to this blog’s Site Meter hit counter, within the past hour “How Appealing” exceeded the thirteen million page view mark. Just last month, on February 19, 2008, the number of visitors to “How Appealing” passed the seven million mark. Thanks for visiting!
“California Justices Set to Weigh Gay Marriage”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”
Earlier today, I collected here much additional coverage of yesterday’s oral argument.
“Of all the conversations I’ve had with Justice O’Connor over the years, one of the most interesting and provocative was a personal one.” So begins a new post that ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg has today at her “Legalities” blog.
Unanimous three-judge Sixth Circuit panel affirms federal district court’s invalidation, under the First Amendment, of an Ohio law that makes it a felony to pay anyone for gathering signatures on election-related petitions on any basis other than time worked: Circuit Judge David W. McKeague‘s opinion begins, “As with the law in general, the First Amendment is a jealous mistress. It enables the people to exchange ideas (popular and unpopular alike), to assemble with the hope of changing minds, and to alter or preserve how we govern ourselves. But in return, it demands that sometimes seemingly reasonable measures enacted by our governments give way.”
“Court Looks At Internet Limits”: The Hartford Courant today contains an article that begins, “The dispute over a Burlington, Conn., teenager’s Internet journal gave rise on Tuesday to a wide-ranging and contentious federal court hearing about free speech, whether schools can regulate students’ language off campus and how the Internet blurs the boundaries of a school campus. Avery Doninger, the 17-year-old high school senior at the center of the case, sat in the front row as a three-judge panel of the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals lobbed questions at the attorneys. Lawyers for both sides described the hearing as uncharacteristically lengthy and suggested that the duration underscored the case’s position in new legal territory.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Appeals Court Weighs Teen’s Web Speech.”
The ruling under review, which U.S District Judge Mark R. Kravitz of the District of Connecticut issued on August 31, 2007, can be viewed at this link. This blog’s earlier coverage of that ruling can be accessed here.
“Calif. Supreme Court Excuses Managers From Retaliation Suits; Ruling brings unusually sharp dissents, with one justice accusing majority of engaging in ‘analytical contortions'”: law.com provides this report on Monday’s 4-3 ruling of the Supreme Court of California.
“Same-sex marriage has skeptics on California Supreme Court; The justices pose varying questions during arguments over the constitutionality of the state’s ban on same-sex marriage; They have 90 days to reach a decision”: Maura Dolan has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
Today in The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that “Definition of Marriage Is at Heart of California Case.”
Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Court appears split on same-sex marriage.”
Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “State supreme court in gay marriage storm; State’s top jurists begin weighing biggest civil rights case in decades.”
Josh Richman of The Oakland Tribune reports that “Same-sex marriage gets tough hearing; Ruling by state’s highest court could set tone for nation.”
Greg Moran of The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that “Court hears arguments on same-sex marriage; ‘Very divided opinion’ expected by one expert.”
The Sacramento Bee reports that “Gays’ right to wed argued; State justices discuss legality of ban, how to define marriage.”
And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Dale Carpenter has a post titled “Observations on oral argument in the California marriage case.”
The California Channel has posted online at this link (Windows Media Player required) the video of yesterday’s oral argument. And the Supreme Court of California has made available at this link (Windows Media Player required) the audio recording of yesterday’s oral argument.
“Supreme Court to Release Same-Day Tapes”: Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article that begins, “The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will take the special step of releasing audiotapes of oral arguments on the same day that it hears a case challenging the District’s gun law.”
“Judges Grant Release Of 3 City Crack Offenders”: The New York Sun today contains an article that begins, “On the heels of a federal decision to retroactively reduce prison sentences for crack cocaine offenders, judges in the city have granted motions to release defendants from federal prisons, defense lawyers and court officials said.”
And The Washington Post reports today that “Government Starts Cutting Sentences Of Crack Inmates; Bureau of Prisons Processes 400 Orders.”
“Judge asked to drop one Nichols attorney; Public defender leader says state-funded budget is tapped out; staff can help 3 left”: Today’s edition of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution contains an article that begins, “Fulton County Courthouse rampage suspect Brian Nichols may lose one of his state-funded attorneys if Georgia officials get their way at a hearing Thursday.”
“Personality Check: Malingerer Test Roils Personal-Injury Law; ‘Fake Bad Scale’ Bars Real Victims, Its Critics Contend.” This front page article appears today in The Wall Street Journal.
“Philadelphia judge threatened with disbarment for 1984 crime”: According to an article published today in The Philadelphia Inquirer, “Today, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will hear arguments in Pittsburgh that [the judge] should be removed for failing to report to the state bar association that she is a convicted felon.”
“FBI: Don’t make us pay John Connolly’s debt; Fights to get out of $3.1 judgement.” This article, about a case argued Monday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, appeared yesterday in The Boston Herald.
“BC Law School will not bestow honor on Mukasey”: The Boston Globe today contains an article that begins, “Boston College Law School will not award its highest honor to US Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey when he speaks at its May commencement, amid sharp criticism from students, faculty, and alumni over his invitation.”
The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Mukasey’s rough justice.”
“Cartel case papers can be shown, court says”: The San Diego Union-Tribune today contains an article that begins, “The public has the right to see documents and transcripts relating to the secret guilty plea of a Tijuana drug kingpin, despite what prosecutors say, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.”
My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Ninth Circuit ruling appears at this link.
“Wikileaks Is Spared a Shutdown As a Federal Judge Reverses Course: How Broadly Will the First Amendment Protect A Website Inviting Leaks of Confidential Documents?” Julie Hilden has this essay online today at FindLaw.
