“Stem cell research can continue to get federal funding, appeals court rules; Scientists hail the decision as a victory for medical progress; The ruling reverses a lower court’s stance that using federal money to study human embryonic stem cells appeared to violate a congressional ban on funding of research in ‘which embryos are destroyed'”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
The New York Times reports today that “Court Lets U.S. Resume Paying for Embryo Study.”
And The Washington Post reports that “Appeals court lifts ban on human stem cell funding.”
And Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Appeals court lifts ban on federal funding for stem-cell research.”
My earlier coverage of yesterday’s D.C. Circuit ruling appears at this link.
“Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor recounts experiences at Princeton University”: The Trenton Times has this news update.
National Journal reports that “Sotomayor Pessimistic Public, Senate Will Ever Be Pleased With Judicial Confirmations.”
And News at Princeton has a report headlined “Sotomayor shares insights on journey to the Supreme Court.”
“Appeals court grants stay, lockout back on”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The NFL may be headed back to a lockout. A federal appeals court in St. Louis late Friday granted the owners’ request to temporarily put on hold U.S. District Judge Susan Nelson’s ruling that lifted the lockout.”
Bloomberg News reports that “NFL Team Owners Win Temporary Stay of Court Order Blocking Player Lockout.”
And Reuters reports that “Court grants NFL temporary stay on injunction.”
You can access at this link the order that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued this evening.
“In Written Responses, Verrilli Tells Senate He’d Resign If Asked to Play Politics”: Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”
“Appeals court overturns stem cell research ban”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A divided federal appeals court has ruled that opponents of taxpayer-funded stem cell research are not likely to succeed in a lawsuit to stop it.”
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.
“Supreme Court Notebook: Justices staying put.” Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.
“Florida Supreme Court overhaul hits resistance in Senate”: This article will appear Friday in The St. Petersburg Times.
And The Orlando Sentinel has a news update headlined “Split Supreme Court plan jams up Senate.”
“SJC nominee’s record is hotly disputed at hearing”: Today’s edition of The Boston Globe contains an article that begins, “In the space of seven hours yesterday, Barbara A. Lenk was both savaged as an immoral participant in a plan to convert children into homosexuals and lauded as a learned and compassionate lawyer and mother whose wisdom is sorely needed by Massachusetts.”
Today’s edition of The Boston Herald contains an article headlined “Councilors play dirty at hearing.”
The Standard Times of New Bedford, Massachusetts reports that “Cipollini presses openly gay SJC nominee on same-sex marriage.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Confirmation hearing held for Mass. SJC pick.”
“How the Law Accepted Gays”: Law professor Dale Carpenter will have this op-ed Friday in The New York Times.
“The Case for Early Retirement: Why Justices Ginsburg and Breyer should retire immediately.” Law professor Randall Kennedy has this essay online at The New Republic.
“A Conversation With John Paul Stevens: In a rare interview, the former Supreme Court justice talks about the book he’s writing and why he decided to retire last year.” Bill Barnhart has this blog post today online at The Atlantic.
And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “Justice Stevens Reveals Plan to Write a Book, Talks About Decision to Retire.”
Ninth Circuit reinstates criminal charges under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in United States v. Nosal: According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which participated in the appeal as an amicus on the defendant’s behalf, the charges at issue “would turn any employee use of company computers in violation of corporate policy into a federal crime.”
Earlier, at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Orin Kerr had a post about the case titled “Lori Drew, Take 2?: The Government’s Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Prosecution in United States v. Nosal.”
Today, the majority on a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling reinstating the charges in question.
Warrant not required for 60-hour GPS tracking of automobile, majority on divided three-judge Seventh Circuit holds: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link. Each of the three judges on the panel issued an opinion.
“Prop. 8 video flap goes to Walker’s replacement”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “San Francisco’s new chief federal judge now must decide whether his predecessor can keep the video recordings of the trial over California’s ban on same-sex marriage – and whether he should have disqualified himself from presiding over that trial.”
“NFL takes lockout fight to appeals court”: The Associated Press has this report.
“Supreme Court says arbitration agreements can ban class-action efforts”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post.
In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that “Companies can block customers’ class-action lawsuits, Supreme Court rules; Justices rule in a Southern California case that firms can force customers to arbitrate their complaints individually; The ruling is seen as a major victory for corporations.”
In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Supreme Court backs AT&T, limits class-action suits.”
Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Supreme Court rejects class-action arbitration.”
On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “Supreme Court Imposes Limits On Class Actions.”
And via law.com, Petra Pasternak of The Recorder reports that “Class Action Ruling an Earthquake for California Litigation.”
“Guantanamo Detainee’s Lawyer Seeks a Voice on WikiLeaks Documents”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
In related news, “Advisers on Interrogation Face Legal Action by Critics.”
And an article reports that “A 9/11 Judge Sets a Timer for a Month.”
“Ruling on Arizona voter law to be reconsidered”: The Arizona Republic has this news update.
Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update headlined “New life for Arizona’s voter citizenship law.”
Howard Fischer of The Yuma Sun has a news update headlined “Appeals court to hear Arizona voter ID case.”
And Bloomberg News reports that “Arizona Voter Citizenship Proof Law Gets Second Panel Review.”
My earlier coverage of today’s Ninth Circuit order granting rehearing en banc can be accessed here.
Client and her lawyer may face sanctions from the Second Circuit for having pursued appeal from dismissal of lawsuit against high-ranking federal officials alleging “a fantastical alternative history” of 9/11 attacks: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.
Recent posts from Ronald Dworkin at the “NYR Blog” of The New York Review of Books: He has posts titled “Bad Arguments: The Roberts Court & Religious Schools” and “More Bad Arguments: The Roberts Court & Money in Politics.”
“High court wary of Vt. limits on Rx data mining”: Tony Mauro has this news analysis online at the First Amendment Center.
“Supreme Court Ruling Places Limits on Class Actions”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Companies can block customers’ class-action lawsuits, Supreme Court rules; Consumers have been able to band together to sue corporations, but the Supreme Court rules in a Southern California case that firms can force customers to arbitrate their complaints individually; The ruling is seen as a major victory for corporations.”
Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “At Supreme Court, another ruling in favor of corporations, critics say; The Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision is a victory for business groups that favor tough enforcement of arbitration agreements; Critics say it puts the rights of corporations over individuals.”
Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Court rules for company in dispute over taxes on ‘free’ cell phone.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Class Actions Limited as U.S. Supreme Court Supports AT&T.”
James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court rules for AT&T in arbitration case.”
And at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog,” Ashby Jones has a post titled “After AT&T Ruling, Should We Say Goodbye to Consumer Class Actions?”
“The Political Divides in DC Appellate Practices — A Comment on the Clement Kerfuffle”: Orin Kerr has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
Ninth Circuit grants rehearing en banc to consider before 11-judge panel whether Arizona’s requirement of proof of citizenship to register to vote is preempted by the National Voter Registration Act: You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.
My earlier coverage of the divided three-judge panel’s ruling can be accessed here. Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor had provided the dispositive vote on the original three-judge panel, but she will be unable to participate in the decision on rehearing en banc.
“Quirks of N.F.L.’s Case May Foil Anyone’s Guess”: In today’s edition of The New York Times, John Schwartz has this article about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
“High court hears dispute over Nev. ethics law”: The Associated Press has this report.
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Scalia guarding the slope: Hearing its final argument of the Term, the Court openly resists creating a new First Amendment right for legislators when they cast their votes on pending bills.”
Access online today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in an argued case: Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No. 09-893. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court imposes limits on class actions.”
“Supreme Court Examines State, Local Ethics Laws”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Ethics on the City Council: The Court, in its final oral argument of the Term, on Wednesday examines the free speech rights of members of elected legislatures, like a city council, when they vote on policy issues.”
“D.A. to appeal court ruling for Abu-Jamal resentencing”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Daily News.
My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Third Circuit ruling appears at this link.
“Detainees’ Lawyers Can’t Click on Leaked Documents”: The New York Times contains this article today, along with articles headlined “Secret Case Against Detainee Crumbles” and “In WikiLeaks’ Growth, Some Control Is Lost.”
“Justices’ Debate Turns to Privacy for Doctors”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.
And in today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Supreme Court skeptical that prescription data laws don’t violate free speech.”
“Atheists Seek Chaplain Role in the Military”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
“The Best Offense Is a Good Defense: Why even opponents of DOMA should want it to get a vigorous defense.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Experts: Judge’s sexual orientation is non-issue.” The Associated Press has this report.
“Justices weigh privacy and drug marketing; A Vermont law bans pharmacies from selling doctors’ confidential prescription records to drug makers; Firms say they have a free-speech right to buy and sell information to market their products”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.
In Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin will have an article headlined “Justices Question Drug-Sales Law.”
In Wednesday’s edition of USA Today, Joan Biskupic will have an article headlined “Supreme Court hears prescription-drug data mining case.”
Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “High court hears case over ‘data mining’ of drug prescription data.”
Greg Stohr and William McQuillen of Bloomberg News report that “Drug-Marketing Limits May Be Voided by U.S. Supreme Court in Vermont Case.”
James Vicini of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court questions state drug data limits.”
Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Supreme Court hears case: Is Vermont restricting drug companies’ speech? Drug companies tell the Supreme Court that by barring access to doctors’ drug prescribing records, Vermont is discriminating against the firms’ protected commercial speech.”
On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “Court Hears Arguments In Data Mining Case.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Yes, it’s about commercial free speech; The Court indicates in oral argument that it views a Vermont law seeking to curb the use of drug prescription data to sell brand-name drugs as an attack on corporate free speech.”
