Available online from law.com: Marcia Coyle reports that “Justices Ponder Heavy Patent Docket; David vs. Goliath case one of many patent disputes before Supreme Court.”
Shannon P. Duffy reports that “3rd Circuit Reinstates Federal Obscenity Laws.”
Justin Scheck reports that “Tech Millionaire’s War on ID Checks Takes Him to 9th Circuit.” Earlier today I collected additional coverage here.
And in other news, “Judges Ask 8th Circuit to Reconsider Its Gun Stance; Multiple convictions are permitted for a single act of possession.”
“Live Tracking of Mobile Phones Prompts Court Fights on Privacy”: This article will appear Saturday in The New York Times.
“BlackBerry Users Remain in the Dark; PR Experts Say RIM Must Do More to Inform Customers”: The Washington Post on Saturday will contain an article that begins, “Research in Motion Ltd. made it easier to communicate with the introduction of its BlackBerry wireless e-mail device, but the company has not been as communicative with the public about its own plans in its time of legal crisis.”
“Feds push to try Padilla in Miami; To avoid a Supreme Court showdown, the Bush administration said ‘dirty bomb’ suspect Jose Padilla could be tried in federal court on lesser charges, not held as an ‘enemy combatant'”: This article will appear Saturday in The Miami Herald.
“Court Rules Against Mom in Download Suit”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A federal appeals court late Friday upheld the music industry’s $22,500 judgment against a Chicago mother caught illegally distributing songs over the Internet.” My earlier coverage is here.
Reuters is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “US court questions basics of SEC hedge fund rule” and “U.S. Court Voids Attempt to Strip Pooh License.”
“Government willing to give up Padilla precedent”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
And Reuters reports that “US says court ruling on Padilla should be set aside.”
“Is the Supreme Court Moving to the National Mall?” Daniel J. Solove has this post at “Concurring Opinions.”
“Groups Ask Court to Toss Auto Recall Rule”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A federal appeals court was asked Friday to throw out a rule that allows the government’s highway safety agency to limit some vehicle recalls by region.”
“RIM surges on settlement talk; BlackBerry maker may pay $700-$800M to NTP in patent dispute, less than feared”: Reuters provides this update.
“Pay-Raise Hearing: Who’ll judge the judges?” The Philadelphia Inquirer today contains an editorial that begins, “State Supreme Court Chief Justice Ralph J. Cappy made a wise decision to recuse himself from the case involving pay raises for Pennsylvania judges. But his move alone doesn’t assure public confidence in a fair outcome of this controversy.”
Snow storm causes First Circuit to close early today: Details here.
“Gov. Picks Moderate to Replace Brown on High Court”: The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.
The San Francisco Chronicle provides a news update headlined “Schwarzenegger names centrist judge to state high court.”
The Sacramento Bee provides a news update headlined “Governor appoints Corrigan to Supreme Court.”
The Associated Press reports that “Schwarzenegger Names Judge to High Court.”
And The Recorder provides a news update headlined “Corrigan Tapped for State Supreme Court.”
“With all of these means available to consumers who want to choose where to spend their money, downloading full copies of copyrighted material without compensation to authors cannot be deemed ‘fair use.'” In an opinion by Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit today considers the appeal of a woman who “downloaded copyrighted music through the KaZaA filesharing network” and, as a result, was ordered to pay damages totaling $22,500 for having downloaded thirty songs.
“Western-state Democratic senators oppose splitting 9th Circuit”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The Democratic senators representing the nine Western states that make up the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals signed a letter Thursday opposing a House GOP plan to break the circuit in two.”
Update: You can access a copy of the letter at this link.
“The Conservative Farm System: Once a little-known fraternity of conservative law students, the Federalist Society has become a major player in the fight to reshape the courts and the law; Why has it been so successful?” The Week Magazine has today posted online this briefing.
“Confirmation of Alito reveals hidden values”: Law Professor Marc M. Harrold has this op-ed today in The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi.
“An Army of Lawyers”: Lisa Hajjar will have this article in the December 26, 2005 issue of The Nation.
“The Letterman Justice: John Roberts is too savvy to keep cameras out of court forever.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Judges cool to ID complaint”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “A San Francisco businessman who wants to fly anonymously heard a federal appeals court panel react skeptically Thursday to his argument that being forced to produce identification before boarding a plane violates his privacy.”
In The New York Sun today, Josh Gerstein reports that “Legality of Airport ID Checks Probed” (pass-through link).
The Oakland Tribune reports that “Case centers on secret ID directive; Requiring identification to board airplane violates rights, court told.” The article begins, “Millionaire John Gilmore did not show photo identification to walk into a federal courthouse Thursday, where his attorney tried to persuade a panel of appellate judges that nobody should need ID to board an airplane,” thus answering the question I previously asked here.
At c|net News.com, Declan McCullagh has an article headlined “Airport ID checks legally enforced?”
The Associated Press reports that “Privacy advocate asks court to expand case about showing ID.”
Wired News reports that “Secret ID Law Goes to Court.” Its preview of the oral argument was headlined “Secret ID Law to Get Hearing.”
And The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette previewed the oral argument yesterday in an article headlined “Millionaire headed to court in fight over ID regulations; John Gilmore can buy just about anything, except an airline ticket.”
“Appeals court reinstates porn case against California company”: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today contains an article that begins, “A federal appeals court has ordered criminal charges reinstated against the owners of a California company that makes violent and graphic pornographic movies.”
And The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports today that “Obscenity case can proceed.”
My earlier coverage is here.
“Lafave plea denied; Marion ruling could mean trial, prison in teacher sex case”: The Ocala Star-Banner contains this article today, along with an article headlined “Case captivates media’s attention; Lawyers, journalists say a double standard exists.”
The St. Petersburg Times reports today that “Lafave deal rejected in Marion; The ruling may jeopardize the former middle school teacher’s plea deal on sex charges in Hillsborough.”
And The Tampa Tribune reports that “Lafave’s Plea Deal Rejected.”
“Congress’ black caucus opposes Alito nomination”: This article appears today in The Washington Times.
The Denver Post today contains an editorial entitled “Abortion issue looms for Alito.”
In The Rochester (N.Y.) Democrat & Chronicle, Peter Durant has an op-ed entitled “Rule out filibustering judicial choices.”
And FindLaw commentator Edward Lazarus has an essay entitled “Why Judge Alito’s View on ‘One Person, One Vote’ May Be Even More Important than His View on Roe v. Wade.”
“Court rules girl not responsible for sex with teacher”: The Associated Press provides this report on a ruling (majority opinion; opinion concurring in part/dissenting in part; dissenting opinion) that the Supreme Court of Washington State issued yesterday.
“Federal court throws out killer’s death sentence; Potential juror unfairly excluded, judges say”: The Seattle Post-Intelligencer today contains an article that begins, “A federal appeals court overturned the death sentence Thursday of a man who had been expected to be the next person executed in Washington.”
“Fighting on the Wrong Front”: Today in The New York Times, Law Professor Peter H. Schuck has an op-ed in which he writes, “in their opposition to the Solomon Amendment, the universities are not only on shaky legal ground, as confirmed by the skeptical questioning they faced from the justices at oral argument, but intellectually inconsistent.”
“Court Voids Ruling Backing Gay Marriage”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “An appellate court yesterday reversed a lower court ruling that would have permitted same-sex marriage in New York City.”
