“Dads: No cash for unwanted children; In lawsuit, activists argue if women have right to decide fate of fetus, fathers can decline financial role.” The Detroit News today contains an article that begins, “A national men’s rights group plans to file a federal lawsuit this morning in U.S. District Court in Detroit, claiming that fathers have the legal right to opt out of the financial responsibilities of supporting a child they didn’t want — in a claim they dub ‘Roe v. Wade for Men.'”
The Chicago Tribune on Friday will contain an article headlined “Men have right to ‘avoid procreation,’ lawsuit argues.”
BBC News reports that “US men fight child support laws; Men’s rights activists in the US are to argue in court that fathers do not have an obligation to pay money towards raising a child they did not want.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Men’s Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay.”
Via this post at the blog “Fumare,” you can access online the complaint initiating suit filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
“Calif. Supreme Court Justices Question Former Prosecutor’s Motives”: law.com provides this report.
When does a timely-filed post-judgment motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) fail to toll the time in which to appeal from the underlying judgment? In an opinion written by Circuit Judge Michael W. McConnell, today a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit provides the answer.
“Judge Warns Prosecutors in Moussaoui Trial”: The Associated Press provides this report.
“State Senate approves amendment on abortion”: The Tennessean provides a news update that begins, “The state Senate today overwhelmingly passed a measure to amend the Tennessee Constitution so that it places a woman’s right to an abortion in the hands of the General Assembly — a move that a series of women’s rights groups said would ultimately lead to no abortion rights at all.”
“First Circuit speaks, en banc, on post-Booker sentencing and review”: At his “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog, Doug Berman has this post on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued today.
“Defense portrays Enron’s Fastow as greedy”: The Houston Chronicle provides this news update.
“Sioux Falls: Ground Zero in abortion debate.” The Argus Leader provides this news update.
The Associated Press reports that “South Dakotans Rally For, Against Abortion.”
And The Rapid City Journal today contains an article headlined “Sides weigh abortion vote” that begins, “A statewide vote on South Dakota’s new abortion restrictions would be a dicey challenge for both supporters and opponents that could redefine the long-standing abortion fight in the state.”
“The primary question in this appeal is whether petitioner, a student at the University of Georgia, alleged facts sufficient to withstand defendants’ motion to dismiss her Title IX claim based on student-on-student sexual harassment.” So begins an opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued today. The lawsuit, whose dismissal on the pleadings the appellate court overturns in large measure, is brought by a female University of Georgia student who alleges that she was sexually assaulted and raped by two student athletes at the school.
“Judge Payne withdraws nomination”: This article appears today in The Muskogee (Okla.) Phoenix. The article includes a comment from former Tenth Circuit nominee, and current U.S. District Judge, James H. Payne, along with the text of his withdrawal letter to President Bush.
“Chief Justice Roberts Speaks at Reagan Library”: This segment (RealPlayer required) including audio clips from the speech appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day.”
“Recruiters in My Cornflakes! Time to give McCullough v. Maryland another look.” Online today at Reason, Brian Doherty has an essay that begins, “The Solomon Amendment has passed constitutional muster, the Supreme Court declared this week in a unanimous decision (8-0, with Alito benched) written by fresh Chief Justice John Roberts.”
One hour from now, you can hang-out in cyberspace with Rachel Brand: She’s today’s guest on “Ask the White House,” scheduled to begin at 4 p.m. eastern time.
The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Tenn. Senate Backs Anti-Abortion Step“; “World Abortion Trend the Opposite of U.S.“; and “Little Change in Number of Ore. Suicides.”
Sharply divided en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit holds that the Constitution, as a legal matter, does not require that a death row inmate understand that execution will result in the end of his physical life in order to be put to death: Today’s ruling, by a vote of 7-6, rejects a Virginia death row inmate’s argument that his execution would be unconstitutional due to the inmate’s mental incompetence. The ruling has generated a total of four opinions, and they all appear quite interesting.
Eleven-judge en banc Ninth Circuit panel holds that an individual’s subscription to web site offering both legal adult pornography and illegal child pornography provides a lawful basis to issue a search warrant to search the person’s computer for evidence of child pornography: Today’s en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit can be accessed at this link. The vote was 9-2, with Circuit Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Andrew J. Kleinfeld dissenting.
Judge Kleinfeld’s dissenting opinion is well worth a read. Therein, he writes:
The importance of this case is considerable because, for most people, their computers are their most private spaces. People commonly talk about the bedroom as a very private space, yet when they have parties, all the guests — including perfect strangers — are invited to toss their coats on the bed. But if one of those guests is caught exploring the host’s computer, that will be his last invitation.
There are just too many secrets on people’s computers, most legal, some embarrassing, and some potentially tragic in their implications, for loose liberality in allowing search warrants. Emails and history links may show that someone is ordering medication for a disease being kept secret even from family members. Or they may show that someone’s child is being counseled by parents for a serious problem that is none of anyone else’s business. Or a married mother of three may be carrying on a steamy email correspondence with an old high school boyfriend. Or an otherwise respectable, middleaged gentleman may be looking at dirty pictures. Just as a conscientious public official may be hounded out of office because a party guest found a homosexual magazine when she went to the bathroom at his house, people’s lives may be ruined because of legal but embarrassing materials found on their computers. And, in all but the largest metropolitan areas, it really does not matter whether any formal charges ensue — if the police or other visitors find the material, it will be all over town and hinted at in the newspaper within a few days.
You can access the dissent directly at this link.
The now-vacated three-judge panel’s ruling, which reached the opposite result from the en banc majority, can be accessed here. It is interesting to note that while all three of those judges made it onto the eleven-judge en banc panel, none of those three voted to retain the result the three-judge panel had reached. And the petition for rehearing en banc and the response in opposition thereto can both be accessed at this link.
Unanimous Supreme Court of California rules that City of Berkeley did not violate the Berkeley Sea Scouts’ constitutional rights by requiring the group to not discriminate against gays and atheists in order to receive a city subsidy: You can access today’s ruling at this link. Back on January 11, 2006, I collected at this link press coverage of the oral argument in this case.
Third Circuit Judge Marjorie O. Rendell on judicial activism and the mainstream media’s failure to report accurately on court rulings: Thanks to the Philadelphia Bar Association, you can download a podcast (mp3 format) of Judge Rendell’s talk yesterday.
“Moussaoui’s Flight Training Detailed”: The Associated Press provides this report.
Details of my cross-country page-signing tour will be forthcoming: When I mentioned that yesterday’s mail included my long-awaited copy of “An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths,” by Glenn Reynolds of “InstaPundit” fame, I hadn’t even realized that this blog and I are mentioned in the book on page 119. I’m sure I’ll have even more nice things to say about the book once I’ve read some of its other pages.
Details of my appearance Monday afternoon (March 13th) at the Moritz College of Law of The Ohio State University to speak about appellate litigation and blogging: Available here. And I’m also very much looking forward to appearing with Doug Berman of “Sentencing Law and Policy” at this Federalist Society-sponsored event at noon next Tuesday (March 14th) in Columbus, Ohio.
“State Supreme Court’s activism deserves scrutiny”: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel today contains this op-ed by Seventh Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes. The op-ed consists of excerpts from a lecture (full text available both here and here) that Judge Sykes delivered earlier this week at the Marquette University Law School. Thanks to “Althouse” for the pointer.
“This case presents the question whether it is a crime under California state law to urinate in public.” So begins an opinion that the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District, Division Two, issued yesterday.
Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Court rules that relieving oneself in public place is illegal; Justices say search, drug bust during man’s arrest valid.”
“En banc Pennsylvania court upholds state sentencing scheme over Blakely challenge”: At his “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog, Doug Berman has this post about a ruling that the Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued yesterday.
“Defense Attacks Prosecution Witness at Enron Trial”: This segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition.”
“Hatch’s flag bill will move to floor; Proposed constitutional amendment: Utah senator’s measure would let Congress ‘protect’ American symbol”: The Salt Lake Tribune yesterday contained an article that begins, “Sen. Orrin Hatch’s proposed amendment to the Constitution allowing Congress to ban desecration of the U.S. flag will be brought up in the Senate in June, setting up a dicey campaign-year debate over free speech rights.”
Supreme Court of California to announce its ruling today in Evans v. City of Berkeley: According to the court’s announcement, the case presents the question “Did the City of Berkeley violate the free speech or expressive association rights of the members of the Sea Scouts by terminating the group’s rent-free use of space at the Berkeley Marina because of the group’s refusal, due to its charter from the Boy Scouts of America, to accept the city’s requirement that it agree not to discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual orientation?” The decision will be issued at 1 p.m. eastern time.
“Most of the day’s testimony is a fiery back-and-forth between Fastow, Skilling’s defender”: Mary Flood has this article today in The Houston Chronicle. And the newspaper also reports that “Ex-HealthSouth CEO drops by; Richard Scrushy, acquitted at trial last year, used similar defense to that of Enron execs.”
The New York Times reports today that “Fastow Testifies Lay Knew of Enron’s Problems.”
The Washington Post contains articles headlined “Fastow Says ‘We Stole’ as Enron Defense Assails His ‘Greed’” and “Scrushy Pops In on Enron Trial.”
The Los Angeles Times reports that “Enron’s Fastow in the Hot Seat; The company’s former finance chief becomes combative during questioning by Skilling’s lawyer in the fraud and conspiracy trial.”
USA Today reports that “Defense goes after Fastow’s ‘greed’ with a vengeance; Former CFO insists Skilling benefited from side deals.”
And The Chicago Tribune reports that “Fastow labeled ‘liar,’ ‘thief’; Motivated by greed, Skilling lawyer says.”
“Witness Ties Moussaoui To ‘Dream’ Terror Plot; Taped Session Recalls Meeting in Malaysia”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.
Today in The New York Times, Neil A. Lewis reports that “Prosecutors Show Tape at Sept. 11 Trial.”
The Los Angeles Times reports that “Witness Details Moussaoui’s Ambitions; A terrorist financier says the 9/11 plotter had a dream about flying into the White House.”
USA Today reports that “Moussaoui’s intentions laid out by associate; Claim: Terrorist said he dreamed he crashed a jet into White House.”
And The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that “Moussaoui dreamed of terror, witness says; He talked about jihad in 2000 in Malaysia, according to testimony.”
In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times: An article headlined “A Brutal Scene Caught on Tape; A 21-minute recording of a sexual assault shattered lives in O.C.” begins, “When Gregory Haidl pressed the ‘record’ button on his Sony hand-held video camera four years ago, lives began to unspool.”
And in other news, “Many Angry Over Fate of Cochran Law Firm; Family members of the ‘dream team’ lawyer are among those criticizing changes in personnel and direction since attorney’s 2005 death.”
“Juror: Tape key to verdict; Foreman in rape case says there was doubt.” The Chicago Tribune contains this article today.
And The Chicago Sun-Times today contains an article headlined “I suffered more than girl, says man cleared of rape.”
“Study: Texas parental law might lower — and delay — teen abortion.” This article appears today in The Houston Chronicle.
And The Dallas Morning News reports today that “Teen abortion down since notification law passed; 17-year-olds delaying procedure, study finds.”
“Plea deal requested for Lafave; Marion County prosecutors say a trial would endanger the victim’s privacy; It could also affect Lafave’s Hillsborough deal”: The St. Petersburg Times contains this article today.
And The Tampa Tribune reports today that “Lafave Awaits Ruling.”
“Abortion Issue Moves to States; Shift on Federal Bench Spurs Governors, Legislators to Battle Roe”: This article (free access) appears today in The Wall Street Journal.
“The Supreme Court Upholds the Federal Statute Giving Military Recruiters Campus Access, Despite “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” With Chief Justice Roberts Following Rehnquist’s Opinion Style”: FindLaw commentator Marci A. Hamilton has this essay today.
