Federal government’s Statement of Interest filed in the federal Terri Schiavo litigation: Many readers have emailed to ask whether I found online anywhere the federal government’s Statement of Interest filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. While I have not, the federal government’s Statement of Interest filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida can be accessed here. Presumably the federal government’s interest didn’t change much over the course of one day as the case moved from a federal district court to a federal appellate court.
“Schiavo Parents Seek Review of Ruling”: The Associated Press reports here that Terri Schiavo’s parents are seeking rehearing of their appeal before the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. And CNN.com reports that “Schiavo’s parents urge full appeals court to act; Schindlers also asking Florida legislators to pass new law.”
There are twelve judges in active service on the Eleventh Circuit. For rehearing en banc to be granted, a majority of seven judges must vote in favor. Three of those twelve judges participated in the panel’s decision, voting 2-1 against the parents’ appeal. Of the remaining nine, six must vote with the dissenter for rehearing en banc to be granted. Or, stated another way, if four or more other judges on the court agree with the panel majority or otherwise find the case unworthy of en banc consideration, the request for rehearing en banc will be denied. My suspicion is that rehearing en banc will be denied, and quickly.
Because the panel’s ruling set a 10 a.m. deadline for rehearing petitions, I wonder why we haven’t heard until now that the parents have filed for rehearing. In other words, if the rehearing petition was timely-filed, it would have been filed nearly four hours ago.
“Wisconsin high school violating student’s constitutional rights; Becket Fund lawyers say ‘God bless America’ protected by First Amendment”: A news release issued today begins, “The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty notified Wisconsin’s Fond du Lac High School today that it has violated a student’s constitutional rights by denying him the right to close an announcement with ‘God bless America.'” You can access at this link the letter that The Becket Fund sent today to the principal of Fond du Lac High School.
“News Agency Sues Google, Testing Fair Use”: The AP provides this report. And The Wall Street Journal today contains an article headlined “A Mixed Blessing: News Portals Like Google News and Topix Attract the Masses, But Irk Some Editors.”
“Jeb Bush Renews Call to Help Schiavo”: The Associated Press provides this updated report.
“N.D. Restriction on Judicial Speech Denied”: The Associated Press provides this report. And The Forum of Fargo, North Dakota reports today that “Judge strikes down judicial canon.”
You can access Monday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota at this link.
“Federalism Has a Right to Life, Too”: Law Professor Charles Fried has this op-ed today in The New York Times.
And at National Review Online, Andrew C. McCarthy has an essay entitled “Another Loss, But a Glimmer of Hope; A divided Eleventh Circuit panel declines to reinsert the feeding tube.”
“EFF appeals Apple fan site ruling”: c|net News.Com has the latest in the Apple Computer vs. bloggers litigation.
Mistrial declared because federal court jury in Connecticut was too afraid to do its job: The Connecticut Post today contains an article headlined “Mistrial declared as jury asks out; 8-member panel dismissed after fearing for safety” that begins, “Members of a federal jury, fearing for their own safety, begged out of hearing any more evidence in a civil suit involving the bloody assault of a suspected prison snitch by a reputed member of the Terminators gang.”
Which of the two judges in the majority wrote the Eleventh Circuit’s per curiam opinion rejecting the appeal filed by Terri Schiavo’s parents? Because the opinion is “per curiam” (Latin for “by the Court”), the answer to this question may never be definitively known. Nevertheless, those of us who are familiar with the writing styles of the two judges in the majority have little difficulty recognizing which of those two judges is responsible for the vast bulk of that opinion. I previously linked here to the biographical information of the three judges on the panel.
“Prosecutors Want Moussaoui Trial in October”: This article appears today in The Washington Post. You can access at this link the motion that federal prosecutors filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The Eleventh Circuit’s web site is being inundated by those seeking access to that court’s ruling rejecting the appeal by Terri Schiavo’s parents: I have posted a backup copy of that ruling at this link.
My analysis of that decision, which I posted online within a half hour of the decision’s issuance at 2:32 a.m. eastern time today, can be accessed here.
“Lefkow killer’s suicide note reveals his hatred, plotting”: This article appears today in The Chicago Tribune.
“High court case combines celebrity and free speech; Man fights order banning him from talking about lawyer Johnnie Cochran”: Gail Gibson has this article today in The Baltimore Sun.
In The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Michael McGough reports that “Gag order on Cochran critic weighed; Justices dubious about extortion claim.”
Online at the First Amendment Center, Tony Mauro reports that “High court appears unsympathetic to famed attorney’s plight.”
In The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has articles headlined “Cities Get Break on Permitting of Cell Towers; The Supreme Court also restores an Orange County killer’s death sentence and backs up Simi Valley police in an excessive-force case” and “Justices Are Asked to Reject POWs’ Case Against Iraq; The White House says the suit stemming from the 1991 war would undermine rebuilding.”
The Washington Times reports that “Christian convert denied reversal of death sentence.”
And in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “U.S. Supreme Court reinstates sentence of Death Row inmate.” In the article, Egelko writes that “Justice Charles Breyer cast the decisive fifth vote.” That no doubt must come as a surprise to U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer.
“Support falters for the ‘nuclear option'”: The Washington Times today contains an article that begins, “Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist does not have firm support among his caucus to employ the so-called ‘nuclear option’ for dislodging the Democratic filibusters against President Bush’s judicial nominees.”
“Appeals Court Refuses to Order Schiavo’s Feeding Reinstated”: The New York Times provides this news update.
The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Parents Lose Appeal in Schiavo Case; In a 2-1 ruling, a federal panel refuses to order the woman’s feeding tube reinserted; The Schindlers are likely to turn to Supreme Court.”
USA Today reports that “Appeals court refuses to step in; Turns down plea from Terri Schiavo’s parents to restore her feeding tube.”
And the latest report from The Associated Press is headlined “Reinsertion of Schiavo Feeding Tube Denied.”
BREAKING NEWS — “Schiavo Appeal to Reconnected Tube Denied”: The Associated Press provides this report.
You can access this morning’s 2-1 ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit at this link.
The composition of the three-judge panel was what I anticipated it would be in this earlier post. Circuit Judges Ed Carnes and Frank M. Hull joined in the majority per curiam opinion. Circuit Judge Charles R. Wilson “strongly” dissented.
In a key paragraph, the majority opinion states:
For the reasons explained in the district court’s opinion, we agree that the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a substantial case on the merits of any of their claims. We also conclude that the district court’s carefully thought-out decision to deny temporary relief in these circumstances is not an abuse of discretion.
The majority also finds significant the particular noteworthy change made to the federal bill that I focused on in this earlier post.
Whether you agree or disagree with the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling, that court certainly deserves much praise for resolving the appeal in a very expeditious manner.
Although it is easy to succumb to overstatement at this especially early hour of the morning, the best hope that Terri Schiavo’s parents had for a ruling in their favor rested with the Eleventh Circuit. The odds that Circuit Justice Anthony M. Kennedy or a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in the parents’ favor — in disagreement with the rulings of the two lower courts — are very slender indeed.
The majority opinion concludes with the following paragraph:
There is no denying the absolute tragedy that has befallen Mrs. Schiavo. We all have our own family, our own loved ones, and our own children. However, we are called upon to make a collective, objective decision concerning a question of law. In the end, and no matter how much we wish Mrs. Schiavo had never suffered such a horrible accident, we are a nation of laws, and if we are to continue to be so, the pre-existing and well-established federal law governing injunctions as well as Pub. L. No. 109-3 must be applied to her case. While the position of our dissenting colleague has emotional appeal, we as judges must decide this case on the law.
The majority opinion’s concluding footnote imposes a 10 a.m. deadline for any petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. I will provide additional coverage of this matter a bit later this morning.
“Lawyer: Schiavo Ruling Expected Soon.” According to this recently updated report from The Associated Press, “The appeals court didn’t indicate when it might rule, but George Felos, the attorney for Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, told the Associated Press that he expected a decision before daybreak Wednesday.” Fortunately, “How Appealing” central command never sleeps.
“Transfer of Guantanamo Detainees on Hold; Federal Judge Considers Authority of Courts, Need to Notify Lawyers”: This article will appear Wednesday in The Washington Post.
The Associated Press is reporting: An article reports that “Appeal Filed in Apple Trade Secrets Suit.”
In news relating to a case that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously considered on the merits, “Jury Rejects Ex-Police Dispatcher’s Claim.”
And in other news, “Court Backs Law Requiring DNA Submissions.”
“Civil rights concerns doom House measure; Bill would let police arrest those who withhold name”: This article will appear Wednesday in The Baltimore Sun.
In judicial filibuster-related commentary: Today in The Washington Times, Bruce Fein has an op-ed entitled “Jaded political benchmarks,” while George Allen has an op-ed entitled “Call Senate Democrats’ bluff.”
And The Albany (Ore.) Democrat-Herald yesterday contained an editorial entitled “Judges’ issue is worth big fight.”
In Wednesday’s edition of The Hill: An article will report that “Schiavo intervention ends.”
And in other news, “Unlikely alliances forged for Hollywood v. Silicon Valley.”
“Abrams Files Appeal for Cooper and Miller in Plame Case”: Editor & Publisher reports here that “Attorney Floyd Abrams, who is representing Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine in the Valerie Plame case, will seek a re-hearing of an appeals court ruling last month that upheld an order for the two reporters to be jailed if they continue refusing to disclose sources in the case.” Thanks to “Blue Mass. Group” for the pointer.
“Three reversals for the Ninth Circuit”: Lyle Denniston has this report online at “SCOTUSblog,” and links to the decisions can be found in this (arguably non-backdated) post from Marty Lederman.
Of course, thanks to law.com, you can confirm that this isn’t the first time the “High Court Reverses 9th Circuit Three Times in One Day.”
Indeed, because only two of today’s reversals were via unanimous judgments, and none were “summary reversals,” today doesn’t even qualify as a bad day at the office for the Ninth Circuit.
Available online at law.com: An article reports that “Supreme Court Asked to Weigh In on Minors’ Access to Abortions; Minors in Idaho may obtain abortion without parental or judicial consent only in cases of ‘medical emergency.’”
And Shannon P. Duffy reports that “3rd Circuit Upholds DNA Testing of Felons, Cites Need for Database.”
In Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times: Tomorrow’s newspaper will contain an article headlined “Casting Angry Eye on Courts, Conservatives Prime for Bench-Clearing Brawl in Congress.”
And in other news, “Schiavo’s Parents Appeal After Judge Declines to Order Feeding” and “G.O.P. Right Is Splintered on Schiavo Intervention.”
“Librarian Sues Harvard Over ‘Pretty’ Bias”: The Associated Press provides this report.
The Boston Globe reports today that “Harvard discrimination trial begins; Assistant librarian brings forward race, gender suit.”
And on Sunday, The Boston Herald reported that “Summers off hook for suit alleging Harvard sex bias.”
No sour grapes here: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Napa Valley Vintners win another round on labeling.”
The Napa Valley Register reports that “High Court rejects challenge to wine labeling.”
And The Modesto Bee reports that “Supreme Court turns down Bronco.”
Some information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, where Terri Schiavo’s parents’ appeal is pending: The Associated Press offers this “Inside Look at Federal Appeals Court.”
My personal opinion is that this is a top-notch court, and that’s not just because “How Appealing” is quite popular among the court’s judges and law clerks. The Eleventh Circuit is also a very conservative court, generally speaking.
The Eleventh Circuit’s official web site can be accessed here. The web site offers biographies of the court’s judges and a little background about the court, which came into being in 1981 when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was split.
You can’t call yourself an expert on the Eleventh Circuit unless you know that Circuit Judge Frank M. Hull is a woman.
Yesterday, a three-judge Eleventh Circuit panel resolved an earlier appeal in the Terri Schiavo case, and that three judge panel consisted of Circuit Judges Ed Carnes, Frank M. Hull, and Charles R. Wilson. There’s a fair possibility that the current appeal could be before this very same panel as a related case.
Two Eleventh Circuit judges in regular active service participated in this blog’s “20 questions for the appellate judge” feature. You can access my interviews with Gerald Bard Tjoflat and Stanley F. Birch, Jr. by clicking on each judge’s name.
Available online from Knight Ridder Newspapers: Stephen Henderson reports that “With no federal issue at stake, judge rules against Schiavo’s parents.”
And via The Miami Herald, “Schiavo’s parents urge appeals court to act.”
Access online the amended federal court complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida today by Terri Schiavo’s parents: You can access the amended complaint at this link. The parents filed this amended complaint after the trial court, early this morning, issued a ruling denying their request for a temporary restraining order.
National Public Radio reports on the appeal pending in the Terri Schiavo case: You can access online audio segments titled “Schiavo Case Moves to U.S. Appeals Court“; “Schiavo Update: Parents Appeal Fed Court Ruling“; and “Legal Analysis: the Terri Schiavo Case.”
“Ducking Tough Questions: The federal court declines to reinsert Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube.” Andrew C. McCarthy has this essay at National Review Online.
In Wednesday’s edition of The Christian Science Monitor: Warren Richey and Linda Feldmann will have an article headlined “Who speaks for Terri Schiavo? Appeals are under way after a judge refused early Tuesday to reinstall a feeding tube, in a case with broad legal implications.”
And in other news, “Lawsuit over an embryo fuels debate on when life begins; An Illinois judge allows a wrongful-death suit involving a ‘pre-embryo’ to go forward, deepening a moral divide.”
