“Retiring justice grew up under Jim Crow. Now he sees ‘criminalizing of black faces.'” Mary Ellen Klas of The Miami Herald has this report.

“Arizona justices turn down bid to delay minimum-wage increase approved by voters”: Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star has this report.

And Mary Jo Pitzl of The Arizona Republic has an article headlined “Court: Arizona’s new minimum wage takes effect Sunday.”

“Reflections Of Conservative Icon Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia”: This audio segment appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“Proposal Seeks to Reverse Ban on Citing Nonprecedential Opinions”: Max Mitchell of The Legal Intelligencer has an article that begins, “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s appellate rules committee has proposed a rule that would allow practitioners to cite nonprecedential decisions from the Superior Court.”

You can view the proposed rule and its explanatory comment at this link.

“Could Rafael Robb stay in prison? Judge suggests ex-Penn prof lied about assets.” In last Wednesday’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Laura McCrystal had an article that begins, “For years, Ellen Gregory Robb’s relatives have battled to keep her ex-husband behind bars, convinced that the 10-year term Rafael Robb got for fatally beating her in the couple’s Upper Merion home was too lenient.”

As the article proceeded to explain, “[A] lawsuit brought by his wife’s estate led to an order that Robb pay $128 million, with payments going to the couple’s daughter, who was 12 when her mother died. Robb claimed wealth of about $3 million but the funds remain tied up as he asks Superior Court to overturn a judge’s decision that his $2.8 million in pension funds could not be shielded from the judgment.”

In my role as appellate counsel representing the wife’s estate as plaintiff-appellee, I briefed and orally argued against Robb’s appeal, pending in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Superior Court issued a judgment order dismissing Robb’s appeal as improper, which is precisely the outcome my client sought in the Brief for Plaintiff/Appellee that I filed on the estate’s behalf.

“Man in motorizied wheelchair convicted of DUII, Oregon Court of Appeals reverses”: Aimee Green of The Oregonian has this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “Oregon court reverses DUI conviction of wheelchair user.”

According to today’s ruling of the Oregon Court of Appeals:

[Defendant] argues that a person crossing a street in a crosswalk in a motorized wheelchair is a pedestrian and not the operator of a vehicle for purposes of the DUII statutes. The state responds that the meaning of “vehicle” under ORS 813.010 is broad and applies to a motorized wheelchair, including when the wheelchair is being used to cross a street in a crosswalk and, hence, that defendant was subject to the DUII statutes when he drove his wheelchair on the street.

This case thus appears to be a real-life example of the “No Vehicles in the Park” hypothetical that fans of statutory interpretation love to endlessly debate (see, for example, here, here, and here).

“Court Vacancies Offer Trump An Early Opportunity To Leave A Lasting Legacy; More than 100 federal judgeships will be vacant when Donald Trump becomes president — a higher number than the past two presidents had when they took office”: Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News has this report.

“For Supreme Court, 2016 Had More Question Marks Than Certainty”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on Monday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“Peril and promise on Trump’s Supreme Court list: Americans want judges who, like Antonin Scalia, don’t accept government arguments on faith.” Evan Bernick and Clark Neily have this essay online at USA Today.

“Here’s what a ‘digital Miranda warning’ might look like: Smartphone owners need to know if — and when — they need to reveal their passcodes.” Cyrus Farivar of Ars Technica has this report.