Programming note: On Thursday, I will be in Washington, DC to attend The Heritage Foundation’s “Supreme Court Preview of the 2014 Term” featuring Michael Carvin and Paul Clement.
I am also looking forward to meeting Michelle Olsen, of the excellent Appellate Daily Twitter feed, who will likewise be attending the event.
As a result, additional posts will not appear here until Thursday evening. In the interim, appellate-related retweets are likely appear at the How Appealing Twitter feed.
“Court Returns Inquiry Into Walker’s Finances to Wisconsin”: Monica Davey will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.
My earlier coverage of today’s Seventh Circuit ruling appears at this link.
“Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Retirement Dissent”: Amy Davidson has this blog post online at The New Yorker.
“Don’t Execute Those We Tortured”: In Thursday’s edition of The New York Times, law professor Jonathan Hafetz will have an op-ed that begins, “After years of legal battles, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, will finally be put on trial before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, though a trial date hasn’t yet been set.”
“Economists’ arguments against Obamacare lawsuits backfire; New taxes and government subsidies are worse than a bad health care bill”: Jonathan H. Adler and Michael F. Cannon have this op-ed online at The Washington Times.
“Judge Denies BP’s Request to Recoup Overpayments to Oil Spill Victims”: John Schwartz will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.
“The return of Citizens United: The plain language of the First Amendment confuses another federal judge.” This editorial will appear in Thursday’s edition of The Washington Times.
“Book Review: ‘The Case Against the Supreme Court’ by Erwin Chemerinsky; Earl Warren used to interrupt lawyers focused on legal particulars with questions like: ‘Yes, yes, yes, but is it . . . right? Is it good?'” In Thursday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Terry Eastland will have this review of law professor Erwin Chemerinsky‘s new book, “The Case Against the Supreme Court.”
You can freely access the full text of the review via Google.
“Charlotte to host court showdown on voting laws”: The Charlotte Observer has an article that begins, “A three-judge federal panel meeting in Charlotte on Thursday may soon decide how North Carolinians vote in November, potentially impacting a midterm election that carries national importance.”
“Porn-peeping federal workers rarely face time or attendance fraud charges; Privacy interests shield government employees’ identities from public disclosure”: Jim McElhatton will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The Washington Times reporting on records obtained from Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General under the Freedom of Information Act.
“Court Rulings Mean Judges Will Get an Extra $1B in Pay and Benefits; CBO adds up costs of Congress’s failed efforts to stop judicial salary increases”: Billy House of National Journal has this report today.
“Stevens Says Ford Was Behind Crucial Affirmative Action Brief”: Adam Liptak has this post today at the “First Draft” blog of The New York Times.
“Second-Best Stare Decisis”: Online at SSRN, law professor Randy J. Kozel has posted online an article whose abstract begins, “If Supreme Court Justices differ over the proper interpretation of the Constitution, can they nevertheless agree about the treatment of constitutional precedent?” (Via “Legal Theory Blog.”)
“Court overturns halt to John Doe probe into Walker’s campaign”: Jason Stein of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this news update reporting on a ruling that Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook issued today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
And The Associated Press reports that “Federal court lifts injunction in Walker case.”
Meanwhile, at his “Election Law Blog,” Rick Hasen is officially having a very busy afternoon.
Update: In other coverage, The Wisconsin State Journal has a news update headlined “Federal court lifts injunction against investigation into Scott Walker, conservative groups.”
And Reuters reports that “Appeals court overturns ruling that halted Wisconsin campaign probe.”
“Roberts at 10: A Look at the First Decade of John Roberts’s Tenure as Chief Justice.” The Constitutional Accountability Center has today posted online what the organization describes as the first introductory chapter of this year-long project. Brianne Gorod is the author of the chapter posted online today.
“Breaking: 6th Circuit Upholds Federal Court Order Extending Ohio Early Voting: Analysis.” At his “Election Law Blog,” Rick Hasen has just begun writing this post about a ruling that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued late this afternoon.
In early news coverage, The Columbus Dispatch reports that “Ohioans can start early voting Tuesday, appeals court rules.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court upholds Ohio ruling on early voting.”
Update: Reuters reports that “Appeals court clears way for early voting in Ohio.”
“$10B ruling against Philip Morris goes back to Illinois high court”: Ameet Sachdev of The Chicago Tribune has this news update.
Update: In other coverage, Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that “Illinois top court to review Altria $10.1 bln cigarette verdict.”
“Penalty against Judge Colleen O’Toole upheld, but Supreme Court finds part of rule governing judicial candidates is unconstitutional”: The Cleveland Plain Dealer has a news update that begins, “The Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday narrowed the scope of a rule that limits what judicial candidates can say when they run for office after holding the rule was, in part, unconstitutional.”
And Court News Ohio — the news bureau of the Ohio judicial branch — reports that “Part of Judicial Conduct Rule Unconstitutional, Violates Free Speech.”
You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Ohio at this link.
“Above the Law gets more Appealing”: Jonathan H. Adler has this kind post today at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
And in case you missed it, last night I had this post linking to an item in The Green Bag’s new issue titled “Bashman and the Judges.”
Update: In other coverage of note, at his “TaxProf Blog,” Paul Caron has a post titled “How Appealing Partners With Above the Law.”
“BP Told It Can’t Claw Back Oil-Spill Damage Overpayments”: Bloomberg News has this report.
In earlier coverage, The Times-Picayune of New Orleans reported in June 2014 that “BP seeks repayment on ‘inflated’ oil spill payouts.”
“The Satanic Lawsuit: Do Satanists have religious rights?” Joey Peters of The Sante Fe Reporter has an article that begins, “An inmate at Western New Mexico Correctional Facility is suing the state for allegedly infringing on his freedom to practice his religion. His religion? Satanic worship.”
You can view the pro se complaint initiating suit at this link.
“Obamacare on Appeal: Statutory Construction of This Politically Charged Question Will Inevitably Be Called Judicial Activism.” Derek Stikeleather has this post today at the “Maryland Appellate Blog.”
“ADF asks US Supreme Court to uphold freedom of churches to meet in NYC public schools”: Alliance Defending Freedom filed this petition for writ of certiorari today in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The organization’s news release reporting on the filing can be accessed here.
“Supreme Court advised to delay taking on water war case; US Solicitor general asks justices to wait for corps to complete work”: Jeff Gill has this front page article in today’s edition of The Times of Gainesville, Georgia.
As compared to today, where everything is just hunky-dory: Today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center, Scott Bomboy has a post titled “Drama, controversy marked the first Supreme Court justices.”
“Famous Supreme Court Plaintiffs: a Quiz; Can you recognize Dred Scott? Jane Roe? Ernesto Miranda?” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence quiz online today at Slate.
“Why I Wrote this Book: Erwin Chemerinsky, The Case Against the Supreme Court.” Law professor Erwin Chemerinsky has this guest post at the blog “Hamilton and Griffin on Rights.”
“Blasting Koh, Defense Asks Ninth Circuit to Restore ‘No-Poach’ Deal”: Earlier this month, The Recorder had this report on a petition for writ of mandamus that attorneys for Google, Apple, Adobe, and Intel filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. You can freely access the full text of the article via Google News.
Also earlier, Courthouse News Service reported on the mandamus petition in an article headlined “Rejected Deal in Tech Wages Case Defended.”
On Monday, a two-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued this order calling for a response to the mandamus petition. When the briefing is complete in about a month from now, the order directs that ” the Clerk shall place this petition for writ of mandamus on the next available calendar.”
The Ninth Circuit has created this page devoted to the case. According to the mandamus petition, the class action settlement in question, which the district court refused to preliminarily approve, “was the highest settlement ever in an employment antitrust case.”
Announcing the new location of “How Appealing” effective October 1, 2014: When Law.com announced in February 2014 that it would be shutting down its blog network effective September 30, 2014, many loyal readers expressed concerns about what would become of this blog. As I assured readers that day, “this blog will continue regardless of where it is hosted.” Between then and now, I took advantage of the opportunity to gauge the interest of a few specific potential new hosts that I would be particularly overjoyed to join if they shared the same level of enthusiasm about me.
On October 1, 2014, this blog will pull up stakes and relocate to this new address, http://howappealing.abovethelaw.com. This blog’s content, voice, and authorship will remain the same, except in place of “Law.com” in its address you will instead need to use “AboveTheLaw.com”
When I began to think about potential new hosts for “How Appealing,” the very first possibility that I decided to pursue involved affiliating with Breaking Media, which hosts several very popular blogs, including the extraordinarily successful blog “Above the Law” founded by David Lat. David and I have known each other for years, dating back to when he was a she, the pseudonymous author of the blog “Underneath Their Robes.” David and I have much in common. He was an appellate attorney, and I still am. He has a tremendous amount of admiration for and interest in our nation’s judicial system, as do I. And we both have been fortunate to launch two popular law blogs with influential and successful readerships.
ATL receives over 7 million page views per month from over 1.1 million visitors. The Breaking Media organization of which it is a part understands how to be successful in digital media and law-related digital media in particular. In addition to David, ATL now has three full-time writers, more than a dozen outside columnists, and enjoys a vast readership and considerable industry influence.
Of course, what “How Appealing” has to offer is me and you, this blog’s readers. As I have said from the beginning, I will continue to run this blog for as long as I enjoy it and others are interested in reading it. Affiliating this blog with “Above the Law” and Breaking Media gives me the chance to reach even more readers who are interested in what we do here every day, day in and day out. At the same time, I can assure you that this blog’s content and voice will not be changing. Not one bit.
One of the things that I have most appreciated about this blog’s current host, ALM/Law.com, and this blog’s previous host, Legal Affairs magazine, is that they have completely left me alone to do what I enjoy doing. I have received more requests from the U.S. Supreme Court (a total of one) than I have ever received from ALM/Law.com or Legal Affairs magazine to alter this blog’s content in any respect whatsoever. And I anticipate this same sort of hands-off approach will continue during this blog’s upcoming affiliation with ATL and Breaking Media.
Now that you know that this blog’s authorship, style, tone, and substance won’t be changing, let me tell you what is likely to change. As has happened several times in this blog’s history, this blog’s template will change, meaning this page will have a new design. And no, that won’t mean that you will ever need to click through past the home page to read the conclusion of any post. But ads will appear, as they do now, and those ads will help generate the financial compensation that I will receive for operating this blog. And somewhere near the top of the page this blog will display headlines for new posts at the “Above the Law” site, just as the “Above the Law” site will display headlines for new posts here at “How Appealing.”
October 1, 2014 will only be the third time in this blog’s over 12-year history that “How Appealing” has relocated to a new online address. Each relocation has been even more exciting than the last. I am deeply thankful for and appreciative of this blog’s readership, and I look forward to continuing to provide you with what you seek here at this location for one more week and at this blog’s new location into the future.
Update: At “Above the Law,” David Lat has a post titled “A Most Appealing Announcement.”
“Podcast: How our federal judicial system was born.” The “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center has today posted this podcast featuring Jeffrey P. Minear, Counselor to Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
McLaughlin Group can’t recover attorneys’ fees for successful DOMA challenge, First Circuit holds: No, not that McLaughlin Group. You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit at this link.
This blog’s new location beginning Oct. 1st: Will be announced here at 11 a.m. eastern time today.
“Federal courts could turn on next 2 elections”: Law professor Erwin Chemerinsky has this op-ed in The Orange County Register.
“Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Why I can’t resign now.” Jonathan Topaz of Politico.com has this report.
“Supreme Court must restore states’ rights in defining marriage; Justices owe it to nation to undo rogue judges’ damage”: The Washington Times contains this editorial.
