Oklahoma federal district judge rejects argument that Ten Commandments Monument on the lawn of the Haskell County courthouse violates the Establishment Clause and must be removed: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma at this link. The courthouse is located in the town of Stigler, Oklahoma.
In news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Judge Allows Ten Commandments Monument.” And back in May 2006, The AP reported that “Okla. display of Ten Commandments goes to trial.” Today’s ruling comes on a day when The AP also reported that “Commandments monuments erected in 2 Okla. counties.”
Following today’s ruling, the Alliance Defense Fund issued a press release entitled “Still standing: Court declares Oklahoma Ten Commandments display constitutional; Monument defended by ADF attorneys withstands legal challenge by ACLU.”
“Experts Fault Reasoning in Surveillance Decision”: Adam Liptak will have this article, in which I and various other law bloggers are quoted, Saturday in The New York Times.
And the newspaper tomorrow will also contain an article by Eric Lichtblau headlined “Bush Predicts Appeals Court Will Lift Ban on Wiretaps.”
“Affirmance, Reversal and the NSA Wiretap Case; Ruling on domestic surveillance refocuses attention on trial court opinions’ impact on appellate proceedings”: The brand new installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com can be accessed at this link.
Lakewood BlueClaws 4, Hagerstown Suns 0: This evening, my son and I had the pleasure of watching the Philadelphia Phillies single-A affiliate beat the New York Mets single-A affiliate. You can access the box score at this link, while wraps are here and here.
Despite this evening’s “Snakes In A Ballpark” promotion, I’m pleased to report that no snakes appeared in the area of the ballpark where we were seated. And although pictured here, the green eyeball did not participate in this evening’s race; the public address announcer reported that it was on the disabled list. As for the outcome, the red eyeball beat the blue by a lash.
“Bush Defends Surveillance Program”: The Associated Press provides this report.
“The Supreme Court was unanimously wrong in Rumsfeld v. FAIR.” So begins the abstract to an article (with link for download) that Law Professor Dale Carpenter posted online today at SSRN.
Is Pennsylvania death row inmate Hubert Michael a death penalty volunteer, or isn’t he, and does he remain competent to decide the answer to that question? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued this decision today.
“To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a computer.” A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit today invokes that quote from the Farmers’ Almanac in dismissing an appeal in a criminal case.
The reason for the dismissal is that the defendant’s counsel mistakenly filed, using the federal district court’s electronic filing system, a notice of appeal prepared for filing in a different case. Thus, the notice of appeal failed correctly to specify either the order appealed from or the party taking the appeal. Then, according to today’s opinion, once the district court brought these errors to the attention of defendant’s counsel, the lawyer failed to confirm whether the proper notice of appeal had been electronically filed and later argued that the incorrect notice of appeal sufficed to appeal from an order not specified in the notice on behalf of a client not specified in the notice.
You can access today’s ruling at this link.
“Feds Appeal Ruling on Surveillance”: The Associated Press provides this report. The parties’ stay stipulation only applies until the district court considers the federal government’s request for a stay pending appeal.
“Judge Gets 4 Years for Exposing Himself”: From Oklahoma, The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A former judge convicted of exposing himself while presiding over jury trials by using a sexual device under his robe was sentenced Friday to four years in prison.”
And The Oklahoman provides a news update headlined “Ex-judge gets 4-year jail term.”
In an article previewing the sentencing, The Sapulpa (Okla.) Daily Herald today contains an article headlined “Thompson sentencing today.”
“NSA Wiretap Appeal: Does a Poorly-Reasoned Trial Court Opinion Diminish the Odds of Affirmance?” That’s the preliminary title for next Monday’s installment of my weekly “On Appeal” column, which law.com will post online here around 10:30 p.m. eastern time tonight. As I mention in the forthcoming column, it will be interesting to see whether the U.S. Department of Justice, seeking to avoid the possibility of having the case randomly assigned to a liberal-dominated three-judge panel, will request an initial hearing en banc from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
“We conclude that summary judgment was appropriate and that the district court correctly held that Brick Oven, as used to identify pizza, is a generic term.” Just in time for lunch, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit today issued this opinion affirming the rejection of a trademark infringement claim regarding the use of the term “Brick Oven” in describing frozen pizzas.
En banc D.C. Circuit addresses whether, and in what circumstances, the defendant in an action brought pursuant to the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 may assert the Speech or Debate Clause as a jurisdictional bar, thereby requiring summary dismissal of the action: Eight judges participated in the decision, which consists of four separate opinions. It appears, however, that all judges concur in today’s outcome. As the lead opinion explains, the Act in question “confers on ‘covered employees’ rights and remedies drawn from various labor and employment statutes not previously applicable to the legislative branch.”
On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “Judge Rules Against Government Wiretapping Program” and “Judge Rules Against Tobacco Industry for Conspiracy.”
“The Bush doctrine under surveillance: The first court ruling on NSA’s warrantless spying delivers another stinging rebuke to the president’s wartime power grab.” Glenn Greenwald has this essay today at Salon.com.
At National Review Online, Bryan Cunningham has an essay entitled “Amateur Hour? A judge’s first-year failing-grade opinion.”
And at the “Balkinization” blog, Marty Lederman offers these thoughts.
“The Kelo Backlash: What the Supreme Court touched off with its eminent domain decision.” Jonathan V. Last has this essay in the August 21, 2006 issue of The Weekly Standard.
“Wiretap Project Ruled Illegal; Warrantless domestic eavesdropping violates the Constitution, a judge rules, sharply rebuffing claims that Bush has unwritten powers”: Henry Weinstein has this article today in The Los Angeles Times. The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Bush: Unconstitutional, Again; The president and Congress should spend more time following the law and less trying to find creative ways to break it.”
Today in The Boston Globe, Charlie Savage reports that “Judge’s ruling bars warrantless wiretaps; Contends program intrudes on rights.”
In The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Judge’s rejection of Bush wiretaps just first round.”
The Baltimore Sun reports that “NSA spying ruled illegal; Federal judge strikes down warrantless domestic eavesdropping.”
The Washington Times reports that “NSA surveillance struck down.”
USA Today reports that “Wiretap program illegal; Bush administration to appeal judge’s ruling.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Wiretap ruling affirms that presidents aren’t monarchs; If eavesdropping law needs to be strengthened, fix it, don’t break it” and an op-ed by James S. Robbins entitled “NSA program is vital tool; Judge’s abstract ruling in wiretap case deserves to be overturned.”
The Detroit News contains articles headlined “Bush wiretaps illegal; Feds will appeal Detroit judge’s ruling” and “Judge was immersed in civil rights movement.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Operate within law on electronic snooping; Judge rules that warrantless intercepts violate Constitution.”
The Detroit Free Press contains an article headlined “Challenge promised over ruling in spy case; Detroit judge: Program illegal.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “A Detroit Judge with Backbone.”
The New York Times contains an editorial entitled “Ruling for the Law.”
The Washington Post contains an editorial entitled “A Judicial Misfire: The first federal court opinion on warrantless NSA surveillance is full of sound and fury.”
The Wall Street Journal contains an editorial entitled “President Taylor: A federal judge rewrites the Constitution on war powers” (free access).
And The New York Sun contains an editorial entitled “Ruling for the Terrorists.”
“Big Tobacco Is Guilty of Conspiracy; Major cigarette makers lied for decades about the risks of smoking, a judge rules; Her words are harsh, but her sanctions are light”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.
The Chicago Tribune reports today that “Tobacco loses big, but not in dollars; Judge: Industry broke racketeering laws.”
And USA Today reports that “Judge’s ruling slams Big Tobacco; But companies don’t have to pay $14B.”
“Mannequin in Suit — Lawsuit, That Is; Westminster woman sues J.C. Penney after she and the dummy clash over a blouse”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
“Political chasm on judges”: U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) has this op-ed today in The Washington Times.
“Discrimination suit vs Angels to stand”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A judge refused Thursday to dismiss a lawsuit that claimed the Angels discriminated against men by giving tote bags to only women during a Mother’s Day baseball game.”
A Cross We Want to Bear: San Diegans stand up for religion in the public square. This editorial (free access) appears today in The Wall Street Journal.
“Silicosis Judge Erupts in Fury In Case of the Missing X-Rays”: Josh Gerstein has this article today in The New York Sun.
“Government Lawyers’ Role in the War on Terror: Do They Have a Duty to Argue What’s Right, Not Just What They Deem Legally Defensible? And Should the ‘Constitutional Avoidance’ Doctrine Play a Role?” Edward Lazarus has this essay online today at FindLaw.
