“Accused 9/11 Conspirator to Plead Guilty Friday”: Reuters provides this report. This will be Moussaoui’s second attempt at pleading guilty, and according to Reuters the hearing is scheduled to begin at 3:30 p.m. eastern daylight time this Friday. A copy of the federal district court’s docket entries in this case can be accessed here.
Zacarias Moussaoui’s first attempt to plead guilty occurred on July 25, 2002, and it concluded with the trial court’s rejection of the guilty plea, as I reported here that afternoon. Later that day, I linked here to a transcript of that day’s guilty plea proceedings.
The Associated Press is reporting: An article reports that “Judge to Accept Moussaoui’s Guilty Plea.” And Hope Yen reports that “Supreme Court Reviewing Drug Patents.”
“Placer deputies face trial linked to pot raids in ’90s”: Claire Cooper, legal affairs writer for The Sacramento Bee, today has this article reporting on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.
“Court Won’t Rehear Tobacco Penalty Ruling”: Reuters provides this report. And The Associated Press reports that “Court Nixes U.S. Request in Tobacco Trial.”
In news from Washington State: The Seattle Post-Intelligencer today contains articles headlined “Court agrees Arco biased against Sikh-owned contractor; But $5 million damage award found too high” and “GOP analysis gives Rossi 100-vote win; But Democrats say state law doesn’t allow counting like that.”
And The Seattle Times today contains an article headlined “Snohomish district lifts suspension over T-shirt” that begins, “The Snohomish High School student who was suspended for wearing a ‘SNOHOS’ T-shirt to school in February will be allowed to wear the shirt to school after all.”
“Court Blocks Ban on Risky Trains in D.C.”: The Associated Press provides this report about an order that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued yesterday.
“Slate’s Jurisprudence: A Public Balancing Act for Judges.” This interesting segment (featuring Emily Bazelon) about judges who speak out in public appeared on yesterday’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day.” RealPlayer is required to launch the audio segment.
“Sleepy Juror Gets Rude Awakening”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
DeLay disclaimer — this post discusses foreign law that I learned about by using the internet: In appellate news from the Supreme Court of Cambodia, The Associated Press offers a report headlined “Brewery Claims Victory Over Anheuser-Busch” that begins, “Czech brewery Budejovicky Budvar said Wednesday it won the latest round of its global legal battle against U.S. beer giant Anheuser-Busch Ltd., gaining the right to sell its beer under its original brand names in Cambodia. The company said Cambodia’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Czech brewery earlier this month in a case dating back to 2000.” The web site of Budejovicky Budvar can be accessed here. The web site of the Supreme Court of Cambodia does not appear to exist.
And in other news from Cambodia, Reuters reports that “30 Years After ‘Year Zero,’ Cambodia Seeks Justice.”
“Bush nominee imperils disabled citizens’ gains”: Today in The Baltimore Sun, Jim Ward has this op-ed about Fourth Circuit nominee Terrence W. Boyle. Thanks to the “Disability Law” blog for the pointer.
Happy anniversary! I can’t let the day pass by without noting that today is the one-year anniversary of the date on which legalaffairs.org began hosting this blog.
“Supreme Court to discuss MHSAA case on April 29”: The Detroit Free Press today contains an article that begins, “The Michigan High School Athletic Association should know by May 2 if the U.S. Supreme Court will hear its appeal of a gender-equity lawsuit, which could force the association to change the seasons in which several sports are played.”
“Court hears Ohio death-row case”: Michael McGough has this article today in The Toledo Blade.
“Piercing case review sought”: The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts today contains an article that begins, “A woman who was fired by Costco Wholesale Corp. in West Springfield in 2001 for refusing to remove her eyebrow ring is seeking a review of her case by the U.S. Supreme Court.”
“DeLay amplifies knocks on judges; International law and Web shouldn’t sway Kennedy’s decisions, he says”: This article appears today in The Houston Chronicle.
“Lobby urges Specter to keep filibuster intact”: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today contains an article that begins, “As the Senate’s Republican leaders draw closer to calling a vote on the controversial rule change that would essentially strip minority Democrats of their ability to block controversial judicial nominees, a liberal group today will begin targeting Pennsylvania’s Republican Sen. Arlen Specter through TV ads running in the Keystone State.” I, for one, will be shocked if Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) votes in favor of the so-called “nuclear option.”
Online at Slate, Chris Cillizza has an essay entitled “The Rules of the Senate: What they are, why they matter, and how they’ll figure in the filibuster fight.”
Yesterday, The Virginian-Pilot contained an editorial entitled “The high road on filibusters.”
In The Denver Post, columnist Al Knight has an op-ed entitled “Common ground elusive in U.S. Senate.”
In The Oregonian, columnist David Sarasohn has an essay entitled “Right wing to the judiciary: Judge Not.”
In The Dallas Morning News, Mark Davis has an essay entitled “Politics can have a place at the pulpit, too.”
In The Boston Herald, Guy Darst has an essay entitled “Courts still need restraint.”
And in The Orion of California State University Chico, Gregory Leben has an op-ed entitled “Filibuster debate goes on and on.”
“Justices Raise the Bar on Stock Fraud Cases; A plunge in share price is not grounds for a suit even if investors were lured by a company’s inflated claims, the Supreme Court rules”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Supreme Court overturns investor-friendly ruling on securities fraud.”
In Financial Times, Patti Waldmeir reports that “Court refuses to make securities fraud suits easier.”
The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that “Drugmaker wins in stock fraud lawsuit; Supreme Court declines to ease standard on claims.”
And The San Francisco Examiner reports that “High court keeps securities fraud standard.”
“High Court Is Set to Hear Case of Research vs. Patents”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
The Boston Globe reports today that “Drug makers see high stakes in patent fight; Case could affect future of industry.”
The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina reports that “Patent case arrives at top; High court may affect drug companies.”
And Hope Yen of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court Reviews Drug Patents.”
“When You Can’t Beat ‘Em: Since everyone wants to kill Moussaoui, he’d be nuts not to agree.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online today at Slate.
In Wednesday’s edition of The Washington Post: An article will report that “Reporters Lose In Appeals Court; Leak Case May Lead to Jail.”
And in other news, “DeLay Takes Fight to Talk Radio.” You can access the audio from this interview via this link.
In news from Colorado: The Denver Post reports today that “Justices say shop owner not liable for sex assault.” And The Rocky Mountain News reports today that “Colorado high court tosses award in sex-assault suit; 6-1 ruling says business not liable in 1997 attack.” You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Colorado at this link.
In other news, The Denver Post reports today that “2 killers spared in high court’s ruling on ’02 sentencing law.” You can access yesterday’s rulings of the Supreme Court of Colorado here and here.
In news pertaining to the denial of reconsideration, The Denver Post reports today that “High court won’t reconsider Auman decision.” And The Rocky Mountain News reports that “Court upholds Auman decision; DA must decide on retrial, plea bargain or further appeal.”
Finally, Colorado’s Supreme Court has also refused to reconsider its recent decision setting aside a death sentence due to jurors’ use of a Bible during sentencing deliberations. The Rocky Mountain News reports today that “Justices stand by Harlan ruling.”
“Supreme Court back on gender equity case”: This article about alleged gender discrimination in high school sports appears today in The Grand Rapids Press.
Yes, no, maybe so? Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in a search warrant case from Georgia. The question presented involves whether police can enter a home to conduct a warrantless search if one spouse consents but the other does not. I first reported on the Supreme Court of Georgia‘s ruling in the case last November in a post that you can access here.
In local coverage of that ruling, The Americus Times-Recorder reported last November that “State Supreme Court rules drug search illegal.”
Also in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times: Tomorrow’s newspaper will also contain articles headlined “As Vote on Filibuster Nears, G.O.P. Senators Face Mounting Pressure” and “DeLay Outlines Strategy Against Federal Judges.”
“High Court Limits Stock Fraud Lawsuits; A plunge in a stock’s price does not demonstrate fraud, justices say, even if investors were lured by inflated claims”: David G. Savage has this news update online at The Los Angeles Times.
In Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times: Adam Liptak will report that “2 Reporters Suffer Another Court Setback.”
John Kifner will have an article headlined “10 Years After Bombing, Oklahoma City Remembers.”
And in other news, “Sept. 11 Suspect May Be Set to Admit Guilt.”
Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro reports that “Supreme Court Rejects Looser Standard for Stock Fraud Suits.”
And in news from New York City, “Threats Against Federal Judge, Courthouse Lead to Arrest.”
“Weighing property rights”: This past Sunday, Nancie G. Marzulla, president of the Defenders of Property Rights, had this op-ed in The Washington Times. In the op-ed, Marzulla writes, “Now the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals is considering a full court, or en banc, review of a case (Stearns v. the United States) that could prove as pivotal as any before the highest court.”
If true, the quoted sentence contains remarkable news, because Stearns Co. v. United States was recently decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Thanks much to a reader for the pointer.
Tenth Circuit Judge Michael W. McConnell issues decision rejecting Commerce Clause challenge to homemade child pornography conviction: You can access today’s ruling, on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel, at this link. The discussion of this issue, as to which other circuits have divided, begins on page 22 of the decision.
Available online from The Associated Press: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has a report headlined “DeLay Slams Supreme Court Justice” that begins, “House Majority Leader Tom DeLay intensified his criticism of the federal courts on Tuesday, singling out Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s work from the bench as ‘incredibly outrageous’ because he has relied on international law and done research on the Internet.”
And in other news, “Judge Weighs Moussaoui’s 9/11 Guilty Plea.”
“Court Declines Case of Reporters in Leak Case”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times provides this news update.
“Who Are the Top 20 Legal Thinkers in America?” legalaffairs.org posts the results of its online poll.
“Let the Filibuster Die: Why Bill Frist’s ‘nuclear option’ doesn’t go far enough.” Timothy Noah has this chatterbox essay online at Slate.
“Court Reviews Rights in Death Penalty Case”: The Associated Press provides this report.
“Lawsuit targets Williams for ouster; It is unconstitutional to serve both as Rhode Island chief justice and as a member of a military review panel, a lawyer asserts”: Two Saturdays ago, The Providence Journal published an article that begins, “A lawsuit filed Thursday claims that Frank J. Williams is no longer chief justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court because he is on the military review panel that will hear appeals from suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The suit cites a section of the Rhode Island Constitution that says that ‘if any general officer, senator, representative or judge shall, after election and engagement, accept any appointment under any other government, the office under this shall be immediately vacated.'”
