Tenth Circuit Judge issues published concurring opinion to accompany unpublished opinion of the court: The unpublished opinion of the Court and the concurring opinion of Circuit Judge Harris L Hartz can be accessed as a single document via this link. But the Tenth Circuit’s web site, which separates unpublished from published opinions, also makes the published concurrence available by itself at this link.
If you are a puzzled as I am as to why the members of this three-judge panel could not even agree whether the opinion of the court and the concurring opinion should share the same publication status, perhaps we should instead attempt to determine whether the “L” in the middle of Judge Hartz’s name is a middle initial (and thus should be followed by a period) or is simply his entire middle name (and thus not followed by a period). His official FJC bio (linked above) includes the period. The list of Tenth Circuit Judges omits a period, as does the page one reaches by clicking on that link. A separate page on the Tenth Circuit’s web site, however, twice includes a period after the L.
Lastly, Bryan A. Garner, whose penchant for detail probably extends to things such as this, omitted the period after the “L” from the cover of his latest book — “The Law of Judicial Precedent — on which Hartz was one of the co-authors.
If this period/no period mystery is capable of a solution, I will report back once the solution has been determined.
Update: Within minutes of the appearance of this post — in what must be record time for promptness of reader feedback in this blog’s 15+ year history — a former law clerk to Judge Hartz emailed to say that “L” is Judge Hartz’s middle name, and it is not followed by a period. My correspondent invoked the example of President Harry S. Truman, whose middle initial did not stand for anything specific, although that example is perhaps not an exact parallel, as President Truman himself frequently followed the “S” with a period when signing his name.
“Supreme Judicial Court ruling gives legal cover to sanctuary cities”: Milton J. Valencia has this front page article in today’s edition of The Boston Globe.
Chris Villani of The Boston Herald reports that “SJC rules against ICE in blockbuster Massachusetts immigration case.”
In today’s edition of The New York Times, Jess Bidgood has an article headlined “Court Officers Can’t Hold People Solely Under ICE Detainers, Massachusetts Justices Rule.”
And in commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “How Massachusetts Became a Sanctuary State: A landmark ruling from the commonwealth’s highest court could change the future of immigration enforcement.”
You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts at this link.
“Philadelphia lawyer gives $7.5 million for continuing education classes for Pa. judges”: Linda Loyd of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this report.
Elizabeth Behrman of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that “Duquesne’s Kline Center to helm new partnership between Pa. courts, law schools.”
And Duquesne University issued a news release titled “Largest Gift in History of Law School Will Transform Judicial Education Statewide; First-of-its-kind initiative funded by esteemed alumnus Thomas R. Kline pairs Duquesne and Pa. law schools with courts.”
“Just How Conservative Was Neil Gorsuch’s First Term?” Oliver Roeder has this post at “FiveThirtyEight.”
“Google Has a Big Canadian Problem — and It’s Getting Desperate; After losing up north, Google takes the battle over a worldwide injunction to an American court; But it’s unlikely to be the tech giant’s last stop”: Eriq Gardner has this post at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter.
“US Appeals Court: Lawsuit against Ferguson, Darren Wilson can go forward.” Erica Hunzinger of St. Louis Public Radio has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued today.
“NBC beats defamation appeal over ‘bomb’ segment on ‘Today'”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report.
And at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has a post titled “NBC Gets Victory Over ‘Today Show’ Bomb Segment at Appeals Court; A manufacturer of exploding rifle targets can’t revive a defamation lawsuit.”
You can access today’s ruling of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.
“President Trump appeals to higher court to dismiss Louisville rally suit”: Matthew Glowicki of The Courier-Journal of Louisville, Kentucky has this report.
“Appeals court blocks enforcement of District’s strict concealed-carry law”: Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this report.
Andrea Noble of The Washington Times reports that “D.C. law requiring ‘good reason’ to carry handgun rejected by appeals court.”
Daniel Trotta of Reuters reports that “Appeals court blocks D.C. law restricting gun rights.”
The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court blocks strict DC concealed carry permit law.”
And Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “A DC Federal Court Just Ruled Carrying Guns In Public Is A ‘Core’ 2nd Amendment Right.”
You can access today’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.
“Judge Ralph Erickson — Nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.” Harsh Voruganti has this post at his blog, “The Vetting Room.”
“The Terminator Heads to the Supreme Court: Arnold Schwarzenegger’s latest project is hardly the stuff of action heroes.” Edward-Isaac Dovere has this report at Politico Magazine.
