“Skepticism at the Court on Validity of Vote Law”: Adam Liptak will have this article Thursday in The New York Times.
Thursday in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Court Reveals Customary Divide In Wrestling With Anti-Bias Law; Kennedy’s Vote Will Be Key in Challenge to Voting Rights Act.”
Thursday in The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin will report that “Justices Debate Future of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.”
Online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a Supreme Court dispatch headlined “How Can Rights Feel So Wrong? The Supreme Court takes aim at the Voting Rights Act.”
And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “High Court Hears Voting Rights Argument” (RealPlayer required).
“Supreme Court Upholds F.C.C.’s Shift to a Harder Line on Indecency on the Air”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.
Today in The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that “Supreme Court upholds regulation of ‘indecent’ language on TV; In a 5-4 decision, the court rules the FCC has the authority to crack down on the ‘foul-mouthed glitteratae from Hollywood’; The ruling allows huge fines for airing a single expletive.”
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court Rules that Government Can Fine for ‘Fleeting Expletives.’”
Joan Biskupic of USA Today reports that “Court backs ‘fleeting expletives’ ban; FCC policy stemmed from televised incidents.”
And law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “Divided High Court Upholds FCC Ban on ‘Fleeting Expletives.’”
“Justice Scalia Responds to Fordham Privacy Invasion!” This post appears today at “Above the Law.”
“Koh faces scrutiny from Senate Republicans”: The Yale Daily News has this report.
And at the “Suits & Sentences” blog, Michael Doyle had this post covering yesterday’s confirmation hearing.
“Court rules against Peltier in documents case”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Imprisoned American Indian activist Leonard Peltier has lost another round in court in his effort to compel the FBI to disclose about 10,500 pages of documents about his case.”
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at this link.
“Kennedy’s Skepticism and Scalia’s Odd Comment at Supreme Court Today”: Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”
“Judge Who Signed Interrogation Memos Invited to Testify”: The Washington Post has a news update that begins, “Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy today invited federal judge Jay S. Bybee to testify about his role in preparing two Justice Department memos that allowed interrogators to engage in simulated drowning and slamming prisoners against a wall.”
The Deseret News has an update headlined “Bybee asked to testify on ‘torture’ memos.”
Carolyn Lochhead of The San Francisco Chronicle has a blog post titled “Bybee invited to testify.”
At the “Legal Beat” blog of CQ Politics, Keith Perine has a post titled “Leahy Invites Bybee To Testify on Torture Memos.”
“The Huffington Post” has an item titled “Leahy Calls On Bybee To Testify On Torture.”
And at “TPMMuckraker,” Zachary Roth has a post titled “Leahy to Bybee: Why Not Give Us Your Side Of Torture Story?”
You can view a copy of the letter that U.S. Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) sent today to Ninth Circuit Judge Jay S. Bybee by clicking here. The Senator’s office has also issued a news release entitled “Leahy Invites Bybee To Testify Before Senate Judiciary Committee.”
“Voting Rights Act section that singles out South may be abolished; Supreme Court justices appear to be ready to strike down Section 5, which requires special election supervision for many Southern states”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.
Access online the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, No. 08-322: The Court has posted the transcript at this link.
“[I]t may be that Russian speakers are a greater percentage of the vodka-consuming public”: Must a vodka be from Moscow, Russia in order to be sold under the name “Moskovskaya” in the United States? A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confronts that question in a ruling issued today.
Today’s ruling vacates a decision that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board issued in February 2008. “The TTABlog” previously had this coverage of that decision.
“Justices Consider Overturning Voting Rights Act Provision”: C-SPAN has made the audio of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument available online, on-demand at this link.
“Voting rights case at high court Wednesday”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has an updated report that begins, “The Supreme Court’s conservative justices led a sustained attack Wednesday on a key element of the Voting Rights Act that calls for states with a history of discrimination to get advance approval of changes in the way elections are conducted.”
At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Sec. 5: Searching for a way out.”
And at his “Election Law” blog, law professor Rick Hasen is live-blogging the audio broadcast of the oral argument.
“Court Allows Civil Torture Case to Proceed”: Charlie Savage has this article today in The New York Times.
The Washington Post reports today that “Appeals Court Rejects ‘State Secrets’ Claim, Revives Detainee Suit.”
Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Court rebuffs feds, reinstates torture suit.”
Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “Ruling restores suit against San Jose company linked to ‘torture flights.’”
law.com reports that “State Secrets Immunity Claim Doesn’t Fly With 9th Circuit in CIA Rendition Case.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “‘State secrets’ doctrine narrowed.”
My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Ninth Circuit ruling appears at this link.
Access today’s rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States in argued cases: The Court has issued two rulings in argued cases today.
1. In Kansas v. Ventris, No. 07-1356, Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court, in which the Chief Justice and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas, Stephen G. Breyer, and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined. Justice John Paul Stevens issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined. You can access the ruling at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.
2. And in Dean v. United States, No. 08-5274, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Alito joined. Justices Stevens and Breyer each issued dissenting opinions. You can access the ruling at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.
In early news coverage, The Associated Press has reports headlined “Court: Different shootings bring same penalty” and “Defendant loses case over jailhouse informants.”
“Justices to Hear Challenge to Anti-Bias Law; No States Subject to Voting Rights Act’s Provision Oppose It”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post.
McClatchy Newspapers report that “Supreme Court today hears Texas challenge to Voting Rights Act.”
At ABCNews.com, Ariane de Vogue has an article headlined “Landmark Civil Rights Law in Jeopardy? Court to Examine if Law is Archaic, or Necessary to Protect Minorities’ Voting Rights.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Voting rights case at high court Wednesday.”
On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “Voting Rights Act Faces New Challenge” (RealPlayer required).
The New York Times contains an editorial entitled “A Challenge to Voting Rights.”
In The Houston Chronicle, columnist Rick Casey has an op-ed entitled “Racist schemes called for Voting Rights Act.”
And at National Review Online, Hans A. von Spakovsky has an essay entitled “SCOTUS Showdown: The Voting Rights Act; Will the justices let America move on from the Jim Crow era?”
“Official Defends Signing Interrogation Memos”: Today in The New York Times, Neil A. Lewis has an article that begins, “Judge Jay S. Bybee broke his silence on Tuesday and defended the conclusions of legal memorandums he had signed as a Bush administration lawyer that allowed use of several coercive interrogation practices on suspected terrorists.”
The Times of London reports today that “Pressure grows to impeach Judge Jay Bybee over ‘torture memos.’”
“The Swamp” blog of The Chicago Tribune yesterday had a post titled “Liberals: Impeach ‘torture memo’ judge.”
And today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “In Torture Memo Furor, Rizzo’s Name Is At The Top” (RealPlayer required).
