Fourth Circuit issues all but footnote 10 of panel’s opinion under seal, which at least allows the judges to argue over footnote 10’s propriety: It’s thankfully quite rare for a federal appellate court to issue an opinion under seal. It is even more rare for an opinion to be issued under seal except for one footnote.
And the reason that footnote wasn’t kept under seal is because it was the subject of a concurrence in part (devoted to explaining why the author didn’t join in the footnote) and a concurrence by the third judge on the panel in strong defense of the footnote.
“Stripped to its pith, plaintiffs’ position is that the U.S. Constitution requires the state of Kansas to grant its political subdivisions unlimited taxing and budget authority.” Public school funding remains a very controversial issue in Kansas state court, but today the issue was the subject of a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Apparently the residents of affluent areas of Kansas would like to pay more in local taxes to obtain higher quality public school educations for the youngest residents of those areas. Today, a unanimous three-judge Tenth Circuit panel rejected a lawsuit that would have allowed affluent areas of Kansas to provide more financial resources for public schools raised via local taxation than are available throughout the rest of the state.
Concurring opinion of the day? Senior Circuit Judge Richard D. Cudahy today issued a concurring opinion that consisted entirely of the following:
Unfortunately; and I think the opinion must be stamped with a large “MAYBE.”
Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner wrote the opinion of the court on behalf of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
“High court declines to weigh in on Arizona no-bail law”: Michael Kiefer of The Arizona Republic has this report.
Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star has a news update headlined “Supreme Court: No-go on Arizona’s no-bail law.”
And David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Supreme Court rejects Arizona appeal over law to ban bail for immigrants.”
“Ellen Pao will appeal gender discrimination case against Kleiner”: Sarah McBride and Dan Levine of Reuters have this report.
“Are You Threatening Me? The Supreme Court wants to know what this vile Facebook poster was thinking.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
Lyle Denniston of “SCOTUSblog” is reporting: In coverage of today’s two major U.S. Supreme Court rulings, he has posts titled “Internet threats still in legal limbo?” and “New shield against religious bias.”
“A ‘view’ from the Courtroom: Elonis and other June 1 decisions.” Mark Walsh has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
“Another Arizona immigration law dismantled by the courts”: The Associated Press has this report.
“Supreme Court Overturns Conviction for Threats on Facebook; Justices say prosecutors must prove intention to follow through on threats”: Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has this report.
And online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Facebook Threats Case Is Hardly Over.”
“Abercrombie Headscarf Case Splits Conservatives”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.
“Panel found possible grounds for impeaching judge Mark Fuller”: Kyle Whitmire of AL.com has this report.
You can view at this link today’s order of the Judicial Council of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
“Muslim Woman Denied Job Over Head Scarf Wins in Supreme Court”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “High court rules in favor of hijab-wearing job applicant who was turned down.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Sides With Muslim Abercrombie Job Applicant over Head Scarf; High Court says Samantha Elauf can raise religious discrimination claims.”
Tom Howell Jr. of The Washington Times has a news update headlined “Supreme Court sides with Muslim teen over Abercrombie in headscarf case.”
Chris Casteel of The Oklahoman has a news update headlined “Tulsa woman wins headscarf case against Abercrombie & Fitch.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Worker Religious Rights Backed by U.S. Court in Scarf Case.”
Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch over head covering.”
And Marianne LeVine of Politico.com reports that “Supreme Court rules against Abercrombie in hijab case.”
“Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Online Threats Case”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Supreme Court throws out conviction for violent Facebook postings.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Man who ranted on Facebook about estranged wife wins Supreme Court ruling.”
Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Supreme Court reverses conviction.”
Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “SCOTUS rules in favor of man convicted of posting threatening messages on Facebook.”
Chris Mondics of The Philadelphia Inquirer has a news update headlined “U.S. Supreme Court overturns Allentown man’s conviction for social media death threats against his wife.”
Peter Hall of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania has a news update headlined “U.S. Supreme Court rules in Lehigh Valley man’s favor in Facebook threats case.”
And Tony Rhodin of The Express-Times of Easton, Pennsylvania has a news update headlined “‘Tone Dougie’ prevails in Facebook threats case before U.S. Supreme Court.”
“The Calm Before the Storm: The biggest decisions of the Supreme Court term are right around the corner; Major abortion cases might not be far behind.” Slate has posted online today this “Amicus” podcast featuring Dahlia Lithwick with guests Tom Goldstein and Jessica Mason Pieklo.
“Celebrity Justice: Supreme Court Edition.” Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has posted this essay online at SSRN.
Hasen’s study is featured in tomorrow’s installment of Adam Liptak’s “Sidebar” column in The New York Times, headlined “Justices Get Out More, but Calendars Aren’t Open to Just Anyone.”
“After Lethal Injection: Three states, three ways to kill a human being.” Maurice Chammah, Andrew Cohen, and Eli Hager have this feature online today at The Marshall Project.
In the June 2015 issue of Texas Monthly, Mimi Swartz has an article headlined “Appeal to Reason: How a prominent death penalty lawyer was wronged — and how the Supreme Court can make things right.”
And The Arizona Republic has an article headlined “Arizona attorney fights for humane deaths or none at all.”
“Honoring Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Supreme Court associate justice receives Radcliffe Medal for her career battling for individual rights.” The Harvard Gazette has this report.
And in related coverage, Harvard Magazine has a report headlined “The Roberts Court.”
“GOP hits another roadblock on Obamacare repeal: After winning both chambers of Congress, they thought they could get a repeal bill to the president’s desk; It’s turning out to be more complicated than that.” Rachael Bade and Jennifer Haberkorn of Politico.com have this report today.
Access online today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued four rulings in argued cases.
1. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court in Mellouli v. Lynch, No. 13-1034. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
2. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court in Bank of America, N.A. v. Caulkett, No. 13-1421. Three Justices — Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor — did not join in the decision’s lone footnote. You can access the oral argument via this link.
3. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., No. 14-86. Justice Alito issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Justice Thomas issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. You can access the oral argument via this link.
4. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Elonis v. United States, No. 13-983. Justice Alito issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. And Justice Thomas issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.
In early news coverage, The Associated Press has reports headlined “High court throws out conviction for Facebook threats“; “Justices rule for Muslim denied job over headscarf“; “Justices reverse deportation of man over minor drug crime“; and “High court: Bankrupt homeowners can’t void second mortgage.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court throws out Pennsylvania man’s conviction for Facebook threats” and “U.S. top court rules for Muslim woman denied job over head scarf.”
And Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Violent threats on Facebook may be OK, justices rule“; “Supreme Court boosts workers who claim religious bias“; and “Justices sock it to Justice Department over drug deportations.”
Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases, but the Court did call for the views of the Solicitor General in one case.
The Court in Taylor v. Barkes, No. 14-939, summarily reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
And in County of Maricopa, Arizona v. Lopes-Valenzuela, No 14-825, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissent, in which Justice Antonin Scalia joined, from the denial of certiorari. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. also noted his dissent, without opinion, from the denial of certiorari.
In early news coverage, The Associated Press has reports headlined “Justices reject bid to revive Arizona no-bail law” and “High court: Officials immune in suit over inmate suicide.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court declines request to revive Arizona immigration law.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Arizona County Rejected by Top Court on Immigrant Bail Law.”
And Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Justices block law denying bail to illegal immigrants charged with felonies.”
“Justices Get Out More, but Calendars Aren’t Open to Just Anyone”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.
“‘Guerrilla War’ Against Lethal Injections?” Kenneth Jost had this post yesterday at his blog, “Jost on Justice.”
“The Kansas Supreme Court Challenged Republicans’ Agenda. Their Solution: Replace the Judges. Gov. Sam Brownback’s tax-slashing crusade threatens to become a full-blown constitutional crisis.” Pema Levy has this report online today at Mother Jones.
“This Could Be the Supreme Court’s Busiest Month in History: The last major decision on Obamacare. The future of same-sex marriage. A potentially huge setback for civil rights. Even if you’re no law junkie, this June will be riveting.” Jay Michaelson has this post today at The Daily Beast.
And at Reason.com, Damon Root has a post titled “5 Supreme Court Cases to Watch in June: The High Court prepares to rule on Obamacare, gay marriage, death penalty drugs, and more.”
“Majority would back Supreme Court allowing same-sex marriage”: Politico.com has this report. You can view the poll results at this link.
“Pennsylvania Supreme Court race could attract millions from outside funders”: Jason Laughlin has this front page article in today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer.
