How Appealing



Wednesday, April 20, 2016

“Supreme Court Rules Iran Bank Must Pay for Terrorist Attacks”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rules against Iranian bank over frozen assets.”

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Upholds Terrorism Victims’ Ability to Collect Frozen Iran Funds; High court rejects challenge to law that intervened in pending court case.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court rules in favor of terror victims.”

Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post reports that “Supreme Court Rules For Congress — And Victims Of Iran-Sponsored Terrorism; The ruling means Iran’s central bank must pay terror claims.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion analysis: A broad addition to Congress’s powers?

Posted at 10:50 PM by Howard Bashman



“Racial Discrimination and Capital Punishment: The Indefensible Death Sentence of Duane Buck.” Lincoln Caplan has this post online today at The New Yorker.

Posted at 10:06 PM by Howard Bashman



“Supreme Court skeptical of drunken-driving breath tests without warrants”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

Online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Even Drunken Drivers Have Rights.”

And at The Huffington Post, Evan Bernick has a blog entry titled “Supreme Court to Decide Whether States Can Make You Leave Your Fourth Amendment Rights at the DMV.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Birchfield v. North Dakota, No. 14-1468.

Posted at 8:15 PM by Howard Bashman



“Supreme Court allows families of terrorism victims to collect Iranian assets”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court upholds Iran payments for terrorism.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Terror victims win Supreme Court judgment against Iran.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court rejects Iran bank’s bid to avoid payout to attack victims.”

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Iran Terror Victims Win at U.S. Supreme Court, Can Collect $2 Billion.”

Posted at 1:11 PM by Howard Bashman



“Appeals ruling threatens key provision of North Carolina law”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court ruling on transgender bathroom access in public schools threatens a key provision of a North Carolina law limiting protections for the LGBT community.”

In coverage from North Carolina, Anne Blythe of The News & Observer of Raleigh reports that “Appeals court rules for transgender teen in Virginia bathroom case.”

And Colin Campbell of The News & Observer reports that “House Bill 2 backers ask legislators to sign loyalty pledge.”

Posted at 12:53 PM by Howard Bashman



“Harvard Yard to the Rose Garden: Merrick Garland’s College Days: As a pre-med freshman, Merrick B. Garland ’74 likely did not see himself going to law school, let alone standing at the side of the United States President in 2016 as the most recent nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.” Marella A. Gayla and Claire E. Parker of The Harvard Crimson have this report.

Posted at 10:18 AM by Howard Bashman



Access online today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued rulings in three argued cases.

1. Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n, No. 14-232. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Ruth Bader GInsburg delivered the opinion of the Court in Bank Markazi v. Peterson, No. 14-770. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. And Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court in Molina-Martinez v. United States, No. 14-8913. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued an opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. You can access the oral argument via this link.

Posted at 10:04 AM by Howard Bashman



“Unbeknownst to Appellants, the stash house did not actually exist, but was fabricated by undercover federal agents as part of a sting operation.” Nevertheless, yesterday a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued this ruling upholding the defendants’ convictions for the crimes they committed in planning to rob the hypothetical stash house.

Posted at 8:39 AM by Howard Bashman