“Court Details Opposition to Bias in Jury Selection”: Linda Greenhouse will have this article Thursday in The New York Times.
Thursday in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Blacks Were Improperly Kept Off La. Jury, High Court Rules.”
And David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Supreme Court overturns death-row inmate’s conviction; The high court says racial bias played an improper role in the 1996 Louisiana murder case; Prosecutors have the option to retry the case.”
“Plan B rule threatens religious freedom, pharmacists say”: Today’s edition of The State Journal-Register of Springfield, Illinois contains an article that begins, “Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s rule requiring pharmacies to fill prescriptions for the ‘morning-after’ pill poses a direct threat to the religious freedom of business owners and pharmacists, and should be overturned, Illinois Supreme Court justices were told Tuesday.”
And The Belleville News-Democrat reports today that “‘Morning-after’ pill focus of court case; Pharmacists test Blagojevich rule.”
Via the web site of the Supreme Court of Illinois, you can access both the video (Windows Media Player required) and the audio (mp3 format) of yesterday’s oral argument.
“Judge: State’s anti-abortion suit premature.” Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “A federal judge dismissed on Tuesday California’s challenge to a federal anti-abortion law that threatens the state with huge financial penalties, saying the lawsuit – filed in January 2005 – was premature because the alleged state-federal conflict might never arise.”
You can access Tuesday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California at this link.
“Military judge rules for driver’s defense”: Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald provides a news update that begins, “For a third time, a military judge has authorized lawyers for Osama bin Laden’s driver to send questions to alleged al Qaeda kingpins in segregation at Guantanamo. The ruling by Navy Capt. Keith Allred rejected national security arguments raised by Pentagon prosecutors. The military judge also sounded dismissive of a government argument that the driver could have conspired in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks without knowing about the suicide plot.”
The newspaper has posted the ruling online at this link.
“High Court Says Blacks Kept off Jury in Murder Case”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”
Access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Chamber of Commerce of United States v. Brown, No. 06-939: The Court has posted it at this link.
“Right to Bear Arms”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Lyle Denniston and Jonathan Turley appeared on yesterday’s broadcast of the public radio program “Here and Now.”
“Justice Scalia and Oscar the Grouch”: Tony Mauro has this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”
“Majority: Give Wash. ‘top 2’ primaries a chance to work.” Tony Mauro has this news analysis at the First Amendment Center.
“Court overturns death row inmate’s conviction”: James Vicini of Reuters provides this report.
“Court Questions California on Unions”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Supreme Court justices questioned Wednesday whether a state should be able to prohibit employers from using state money to influence employees’ views on unions in their workplace.”
Access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, No. 06-1717: The Court has posted it at this link.
“Individuals’ Rights Key in Landmark D.C. Gun Case”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”
“Court Rejects La. Murder Conviction”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The Supreme Court threw out the death sentence and conviction in a Louisiana murder case Wednesday, citing racial prejudice in the actions of a prosecutor who called the murder trial his ‘O.J. Simpson case’ and kept blacks off the jury.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court finds flaws in La. jury choice.”
The U.S. Supreme Court‘s lone opinion in an argued case issued today in Snyder v. Louisiana, No. 06-10119. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued the majority opinion, in which the Chief Justice and Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer joined. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Antonin Scalia joined. You can access the decision at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.
“Court Weighs Right to Guns, and Its Limits”: Linda Greenhouse has this front page article today in The New York Times.
Today in The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that “Supreme Court appears to favor individual gun rights; A majority signals that it thinks the 2nd Amendment is not limited to arms for ‘a well-regulated militia.’”
Charlie Savage of The Boston Globe reports that “High Court hears 2d Amendment case; Justices asked to reverse D.C. handgun ban.”
Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “U.S. Supreme Court judges question DC gun ban; At a court session Tuesday, majority judges seemed to support an individual’s right to bear arms.”
In The Chicago Tribune, James Oliphant reports that “High court signals gun sentiments; Some weigh in on 2nd Amendment.”
law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “Supreme Court Hears Arguments in D.C. Gun Ban Case; Afterwards, gun-control advocates seemed less pessimistic than before the arguments, though they did not predict victory.”
Emma Schwartz of U.S. News & World Reports has an article headlined “Justices Lean Toward Individual Right to Bear Arms; Supreme Court hears arguments in the landmark case on the District of Columbia’s gun ban.”
The Washington Times contains articles headlined “Court weighs right to own guns” and “Gun fanciers, foes get day in court.”
Joseph Goldstein of The New York Sun reports that “9 Seem Set To Rule for Gun Rights; Case Could Make Legal History.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Heller at the High Bench.”
The New York Daily News reports that “Supreme Court could lift 32-year handgun ban in the nation’s capital.”
The Albany (N.Y.) Times Union reports that “D.C. gun rights case is of supreme interest.”
The Salt Lake Tribune reports that “Utahns watching Supreme Court gun case, but doubt it will affect them.”
The Lancaster (Pa.) Intelligencer Journal has an article headlined “MU grad witnesses high court gun talk” reporting on the first two members of the general public in line to gain admission to the oral argument.
The Harrisburg Patriot-News contains an article headlined “Would gun ban work in city?”
The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette reports that “Leading gun-control activist, ex-mayor ‘amazed’ by debate.”
The Statesville (N.C.) Record & Landmark reports that “Residents discuss right to bear arms as case heads to Supreme Court.”
The Toronto Globe and Mail reports that “Gun-control case starts to split U.S. court.”
The Telegraph (UK) reports that “US gun law in Supreme Court’s sights.”
USA Today contains an editorial entitled “Preserve limits on guns: Case gives court chance to balance individual rights, public safety” along with an op-ed by Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson entitled “An unambiguous right: 2nd Amendment bars regulation of people’s ability to bear arms.”
And The Baltimore Sun contains an editorial entitled “The D.C. handgun ban.”
“Former FBI Agent Investigates ‘Naughty’ Judge; Randy Judge Is Under Investigation for Alleged Judicial Misconduct”: ABCNews.com provides a report that begins, “A former FBI agent has been hired to investigate Colorado’s top federal judge who was recently linked to an investigation into a Denver-based prostitution ring. Former FBI agent David Brundage is working for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in its investigation of Judge Edward Nottingham for alleged judicial misconduct in two cases, ABC News has learned.”
“Retrial: No sure way to tell who has edge.” Today’s edition of The Rocky Mountain News contains an article that begins, “Who has the upper hand if the government retries former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio? It depends on whom you ask.”
And The Denver Post today contains an editorial entitled “For judge, a vote of no confidence.”
“State’s ‘Top Two’ primary upheld by U.S. justices”: The Seattle Post-Intelligencer contains this article today.
The Seattle Times reports today that “State ballot could pit two from same party.”
The Olympian of Olympia, Washington reports that “Top-two system will change face of local politics.”
And McClatchy Newspapers report that “Supreme Court upholds Washington state’s ‘top-two’ primary.”
“Government Files Brief in Opposition to Cert. Petition in Murphy“: This post appears today at “TaxProf Blog.” This is the case in which a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit originally held that it would be unconstitutional to include in gross income for tax purposes compensatory damages received for emotional distress. On panel rehearing, however, the same panel reached the opposite (and surely correct) conclusion. You can view the federal government’s brief in opposition at this link.
My extensive earlier coverage of this case can be accessed via this link.
“Is the Wikileaks Case Really Like the Pentagon Papers Case? Part Two of a Two-Part Series on a Lawsuit Against a Controversial Site that Hosts Confidential Government and Corporate Documents.” Julie Hilden has this essay today at FindLaw. Her earlier part one essay is available at this link.
