“Justices Affirm Property Seizures; 5-4 Ruling Backs Forced Sales for Private Development”: Charles Lane will have this article Friday in The Washington Post.
In Friday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage will report that “Court Gives Cities More Power to Seize Homes.”
And Friday’s edition of The Dallas Morning News will contain an article headlined “In light of stadium, ruling pleases Arlington; But some attorneys say state courts often side with property owners.”
Available online from law.com: An article reports that “11th Circuit’s Pryor Calls Abortion ‘Evil’ but Says He’ll Follow Laws; Newly confirmed federal judge says he holds no bitterness from Senate fight.”
And in other news, “ExxonMobil Faces $1 Billion in Damages in Wake of Supreme Court Ruling.”
“Justices Uphold Taking Property for Development”: Linda Greenhouse will have this article Friday in The New York Times, which will also contain a related article headlined “For Homeowners, Frustration and Anger at Court Ruling.”
The Sacramento Bee reports that “High court approves seizure of property for private use.”
And Friday in The Washington Post, columnist George F. Will will have an op-ed entitled “Damaging ‘Deference’” that begins, “The country is bracing for a bruising battle over filling a Supreme Court vacancy, a battle in which conservatives will praise ‘judicial restraint’ and ‘deference’ to popularly elected branches of government and liberals will praise judicial activism in defense of individual rights. But consider what the court did yesterday.”
“Wingate must give decision on records”: The Biloxi Sun Herald today contains an article that begins, “A federal appeals court has given U.S. District Court Judge Henry T. Wingate until Friday to decide The Sun Herald’s request that records be unsealed in a judicial bribery case Wingate is trying in Jackson.” You can access yesterday’s unpublished opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.
In other coverage of that trial, The Sun Herald today also contains an article headlined “Attorney didn’t suspect Minor, judge; He had been assured judge was fair-minded.”
And The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi today contains an article headlined “Judge’s ruling bribery trial focus.”
“A Supreme Court Conversation: A bad day for property owners at the court.” Slate’s Term-ending discussion around “the breakfast table” begins with this entry this evening from Charles Fried.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy goes for a ride on the small bus: Those who prefer to spell “de minimis” as “de minimus” now can cite Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion in Kelo v. City of New London as authority. More on “mis” versus “mus” here and here. (Thanks to “Althouse” and reader email for the pointers.)
“Court ruling benefits stadium plan”: The Dallas Morning News provides an update that begins, “A Supreme Court decision Thursday cleared the path to construction of a $650 million stadium for the Dallas Cowboys in Arlington. A divided Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights.”
And The Fort Worth Star-Telegram provides a news update headlined “Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes.” The article reports, “Locally, the ruling effectively endorses Arlington’s acquisition of up to 200 homes and businesses to develop the new $650 million Dallas Cowboy Stadium. Government officials in the high-growth Dallas-Fort Worth area will presumably rely heavily on the ruling in acquiring property for future projects.”
Coincidentally, the U.S. Supreme Court‘s most prominent Dallas Cowboys fan dissented from the ruling.
Indecent exposure can still qualify as a crime even if it occurs between two people located inside a private home: The Michigan Court of Appeals issued this ruling earlier this month (via “ADF Alliance Alert“).
“Court Allows Cities to Seize Private Homes”: This segment (transcript with link to audio) featuring Jan Crawford Greenburg appeared on this evening’s broadcast of PBS‘s “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.”
“Justices, 5-4, Back Seizure of Property for Development”: Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times provides this news update.
And Stephen Henderson of Knight Ridder Newspapers reports that “Governments can seize private land, high court rules.”
“High Court Deals Blow to Property Rights”: Tony Mauro has this news update online at law.com.
“Supreme Court on Eminent Domain”: Today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Talk of the Nation” included this segment featuring David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times.
And today’s broadcast of the public radio program “Here & Now” included a segment entitled “High Court Okays Property Seizure for Development” featuring Lyle Denniston.
RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.
“Peeved Homeowner? Take Action!” Andrew Cohen, legal analyst for CBS News, has an essay that begins, “No one is looking for the middle ground in the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling that allows the government to seize private property for commercial use.”
“Government Power to Take Property Backed by Top Court”: Bloomberg News provides this report.
And at Forbes.com, Dan Ackman has a related essay entitled “Power To The Public.”
“Development Trumps Property, Says High Court”: Nina Totenberg had this report (RealPlayer required) on this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered.”
“CA2: Muntaqim Recap.” The blog “Appellate Law & Practice” offers this post containing reader reports on yesterday’s Second Circuit en banc argument in a case about voting rights for felons.
“Justices Allow Smaller Claims in Courts”: The Associated Press provides this report.
“Court widens scope of property seizure; It rules 5 to 4 that local governments can take homes and other property for private development”: Warren Richey will have this article Friday in The Christian Science Monitor.
Reuters is reporting: James Vicini has an article headlined “US Court: Property Can Be Taken for Development.”
And in other news, “US High Court Upholds Class-Action Claims Vs Exxon.”
“Courthouses in New Haven evacuated”: New Haven, Connecticut’s News Channel 8 provides this report.
Improper delegation of the trial court’s traditional adjudicatory function to Magistrate Judge in CERCLA contribution action, in the absence of the parties’ consent, necessitates new equitable allocation proceeding before a U.S. District Judge: A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued this ruling today.
“Slate’s Jurisprudence: Private Eminent Domain.” This segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Emily Bazelon appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day.”
“Supreme Court Expands Power of Eminent Domain”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.
“Supreme Court says smaller claims can join federal class-actions”: MarketWatch provides this report.
“Calif justices say Coastal Commission legal”: David Kravets of The Associated Press provides this report on a ruling that the Supreme Court of California issued today.
And in a separate ruling issued today, the Court further clarifies when “I forgot” constitutes a valid defense to the felony offense of “willfully” failing to register as a sex offender.
“High Court: Property Can Be Seized for Private Development.” Nina Totenberg had this report (RealPlayer required) on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition.”
“Judging the Shortlist: While All Conservative, Bush’s Roster of Possible Rehnquist Successors Show Differences.” Jeanne Cummings and Jess Bravin have this article (pass-through link) in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.
Breaking News — law blogger once expressed opinions on matters of public concern: Today’s law blogger in-the-news is Jason Nemes, for reasons discussed here and here. Remember, bloggers, the Internet Archive Wayback Machine never forgets.
On Monday, June 27, 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States plans to issue all six remaining decisions in cases argued this Term: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston provides this report. My list of these remaining six cases and the questions they present can be accessed here.
When do ten days equal or exceed fourteen? Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of course: Circuit Judge Boyce F. Martin, Jr., on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, today has issued an opinion that begins:
If a ten-day period and a fourteen-day period start on the same day, which one ends first? Most sane people would suggest the ten-day period. But, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, time is relative. Fourteen days usually lasts fourteen days. Ten days, however, never lasts just ten days; ten days always lasts at least fourteen days. Eight times per year ten days can last fifteen days. And, once per year, ten days can last sixteen days. And this does not even take into account inclement weather. As we sometimes say in Kentucky, there’s eight ways to Sunday.
You can access the complete ruling at this link.
Links to today’s U.S. Supreme Court opinions are now available online: You can access today’s opinions via this link. I have updated my post dated 10 a.m. this morning so that it now provides direct links to these decisions.
The six argued cases that remain pending for decision this Term before the Supreme Court of the United States: The final six argued cases yet to be decided this Term are listed in order of oral argument, with the case argued longest ago listed first:
- Van Orden v. Perry, No. 03-1500, click here to access the question presented in this Ten Commandments case from Texas (argued March 2, 2005);
- McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, No. 03-1693, click here to access the questions presented in this Ten Commandments case from Kentucky (argued March 2, 2005);
- Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278, click here to access the questions presented in this case involving a procedural due process claim against a local government for its failure to protect the holder of a partial restraining order from private violence (argued March 21, 2005);
- MGM Studios v. Grokster, No. 04-480, click here to access the question presented in this copyright, file sharing, vicarious liability case (argued March 29, 2005);
- Nat’l Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., No. 04-277, and FCC v. Brand X Internet Servs., No. 04-281 (consolidated cases), click here to access the questions presented in this case involving the FCC’s regulation of cable internet services (argued March 29, 2005); and
- Bell v. Thompson, No. 04-514, click here to access the question presented in this death penalty case challenging the Sixth Circuit’s withdrawal of its opinion affirming the denial of habeas corpus relief six months after the time when issuance of that court’s mandate became mandatory (argued April 26, 2005)
The Supreme Court will next issue decisions in argued cases on Monday, June 27, 2005.
“Senate Dems Want Consult on Court Pick”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Senate Democrats are urging President Bush to consult with them on a possible Supreme Court nomination to help avoid the kind of controversy that engulfed his lower court picks.”
Today’s opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States in argued cases: The Court today decided six of its remaining twelve argued cases, saving all but one of the Term’s blockbuster rulings for next week, when the Court will issue all remaining decisions.
1. Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court in Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108. You can access the syllabus here; Justice Stevens’ opinion here; Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s concurring opinion here; Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s dissenting opinion here; Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissenting opinion here; and the oral argument transcript here. Hope Yen of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes.” And James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Property can be taken for development-Supreme Court.”
2. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Orff v. United States, No. 03-1566. You can access the syllabus here; Justice Thomas’s opinion here; and the oral argument transcript here.
3. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court in Exxon Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., No. 04-70 (consolidated with Ortega v. Starkist Foods, No. 04-79). You can access the syllabus here; Justice Kennedy’s opinion here; Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion here; Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion here; and the oral argument transcript here. The Court by a 5-4 margin has held that the supplemental jurisdiction statute requires only one plaintiff to satisfy the amount-in-controversy jurisdictional threshold. The Court had previously split 4-4, with one Justice recused, on this very issue.
4. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion in Mayle v. Felix, No. 04-563. You can access the syllabus here; Justice Ginsburg’s opinion here; Justice David H. Souter’s dissenting opinion here; and the oral argument transcript here.
5. Justice Ginsburg also delivered the opinion in Halbert v. Michigan, No. 03-10198. You can access the syllabus here; Justice Ginsburg’s opinion here; Justice Thomas’s dissenting opinion here; and the oral argument transcript here. Gina Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court Strikes Down Michigan Law.”
6. And Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion in Gonzalez v. Crosby, No. 04-6432. You can access the syllabus here; Justice Scalia’s opinion here; Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s concurring opinion here; Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion here; and the oral argument transcript here.
At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston provides this report on today’s opinions.
Earlier this week, I provided additional details on these cases in a post you can access here.
“Judge cleared in plagiarism case; Accused of cribbing part of a research paper, Gregory Holder calls the JQC decision ‘an affirmation of our system of justice'”: The St. Petersburg Times today contains an article that begins, “Hillsborough Circuit Judge Gregory Holder said late Wednesday that he had been cleared of plagiarism charges by the state Judicial Qualifications Commission.”
