“The Battle for Guantanamo”: The September 17, 2006 issue of The New York Times Magazine will contain a lengthy article by Tim Golden that begins, “Col. Mike Bumgarner took over as the warden of Guantanamo Bay in April 2005. He had been hoping to be sent to Iraq; among senior officers of the Army’s military police corps, the job of commanding guards at the American detention camp in Cuba was considered not particularly challenging and somewhat risky to a career.”
“Bush, GOP Senators Seek Deal on Tribunals”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”
“Couple Loses Challenge on Blood Test Law”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A federal judge has refused to throw out Nebraska’s one-of-a-kind newborn blood screening law.”
I have posted online at this link today’s ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf of the District of Nebraska. The opinion begins, “Loving parents want to delay the state-mandated testing of their newly born infants for metabolic diseases because of their sincere religious beliefs and because of their equally sincere and related concern for the health of their children. Just as committed to the well-being of newborns, the State of Nebraska refuses to accommodate the family. Nebraska fervently believes that such an accommodation would harm children.”
“White House Pressures GOP on Detainees”: The Associated Press provides this report.
A slightly less ‘Wild’ future is planned: The Los Angeles Times provides a news update headlined “‘Girls Gone Wild’ Cuts Plea Deal; The Santa Monica-based company failed to maintain age and identity documents for performers in sexually explicit films.”
And Hope Yen of The Associated Press reports that “‘Girls Gone Wild’ Company Pleads Guilty.”
You can access a copy of the deferred prosecution agreement filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida at this link.
“Floor votes, please”: The Washington Times today contains an editorial that begins, “Conservative activists waited apprehensively Friday for the Senate Judiciary Committee to move on stalled judicial nominees scheduled then for consideration.”
“Sex Offender Loses Bid to Stay Off Web ID List”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Dahlia Lithwick appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day.”
“Supreme Court denies Childers’ appeal”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Former Florida Senate President W.D. Childers’ bribery appeal will not be heard by the state Supreme Court, which decided it lacked jurisdiction over the case in a 4-2 vote Monday.”
The Tallahassee Democrat today contains an article headlined “Supreme Court rejects W.D. Childers’ appeal.” According to the article:
It was a deeply divided First District Court of Appeal that in February rejected Childers’ request for a new trial. Then, in June, that same court refused to ask the Supreme Court to consider the case.
June’s appellate court decision included an incendiary opinion written by Judge Michael Allen. It accused First District Court of Appeals Chief Judge Charles Kahn of the appearance of impropriety because of what Allen said was Kahn’s entanglement in Childers’ powerful political machine.
The appellate court’s ruling further revealed that a three-judge panel of the court, led by Kahn, in January 2005 was four days away from issuing an opinion that would have overturned Childers’ conviction.
Instead, a majority of the appeals court’s 15 judges voted for all of them to consider the case. Then, the full court in February 2006 issued a ruling, with 10 different judges writing opinions that upheld Childers’ 2003 conviction.
And The Pensacola News Journal reports that “Childers’ appeal denied; Ex-politician’s legal team to decide whether to take case to federal court.”
Back in July 2006, I had this lengthy post about the case.
“Judge sentences car in his spot to lockdown; When Judge Stanley Mills finds his reserved place taken, he blocks the car in for hours”: The St. Petersburg Times contains this article today.
“Voting Rights statute tested; Austin water district sues over portion dealing with minority participation”: This article appeared last Friday in The Houston Chronicle. Today at his “Election Law” blog, Rick Hasen has a post titled “Three-Judge Panel Named to Hear Texas Challenge to Constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.” The case is pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
“Because courts must be able to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, we have no hesitation in concluding that a party who files suit under a false name and proceeds with that deception right up to trial loses the right to seek judicial relief for the claims he was advancing.” So concludes an opinion that Circuit Judge Ed Carnes issued today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
“[T]o constitute an ADA impairment, a person’s obesity, even morbid obesity, must be the result of a physiological condition.” Non-physiological morbid obesity is not an “impairment” under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled today in an opinion you can access here.
Update: Law Professor Sam Bagenstos, at his “Disability Law” blog, offers these thoughts about the ruling.
“Court Hears Arguments on Guantanamo Transfers”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition.” According to the report, D.C. Circuit Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh is on the three-judge panel assigned to decide the case.
“Sens. Grassley, Sessions hold up a key nominee”: The Hill’s home page today contains a link to an article that begins, “Sens. Chuck Grassley (Iowa) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.), two Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, are holding up the nomination of Peter D. Keisler to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Bush administration’s top priority on judicial nominees this fall, according to knowledgeable sources.” The link to the article itself, however, produces a page where the word “ERROR” appears in place of the article’s text. Update: The Hill has fixed the error, and now the full text of the article can be accessed here.
“Sullivan Subpoena Case To Go On”: Today in The Hartford Courant, Lynne Tuohy has an article that begins, “A panel of seven Appellate Court judges will decide whether former Chief Justice William J. Sullivan can be compelled to testify during an investigation launched by the General Assembly’s judiciary committee into allegations of misconduct on his part.”
And The Connecticut Law Tribune reports that “Full Appellate Court To Sit As Supreme Court In Sullivan Subpoena Case.”
“Justice Department Lawyers Lose Appeal on Overtime Pay”: That’s the headline of Stephen Barr’s “Federal Diary” column today in The Washington Post. My earlier coverage appears at this link.
“Man Loses Suit to Keep Identity off Sex Offender Registry”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “John Doe must reveal who he is — and that he was convicted 12 years ago of incest — or face arrest for not submitting that information to Virginia’s sex-offender registry, a Prince William County judge ruled yesterday.”
“White House Gains Concessions in Senate Measure on Tribunals”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.
“Court Panel Denies Blogger’s Appeal”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “In a case closely watched by First Amendment advocates, a federal court panel has rejected an appeal by a freelance journalist and blogger who has refused to appear before a grand jury or turn over video he shot of a violent protest last summer.”
The San Francisco Chronicle reports today that “Freelance journalist loses appeal on keeping footage from grand jury; Cameraman lacked grounds to resist subpoena, judges say.”
And David Kravets of The Associated Press reports that “Appeals Court Rules Reporter in Contempt.”
Last Friday’s non-precedential ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit can be accessed here (scroll down) via “The Huffington Post.”
“Jack Bauer Insurance: Can CIA agents be sued for protecting America with too much vigor?” This editorial appears today in The Wall Street Journal.
“A Judge Accepts a Claim Paralleling the Mafia and the Tobacco Industry”: Anthony J. Sebok has this essay online at FindLaw.
