D.C. Circuit decides major challenge to 2002 regulations under the Clean Air Act: You can access today’s ruling at this link.
Angelos Tenth Circuit amicus brief: Via the “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog, you can access a copy of the amicus brief — “signed by 163 former U.S. attorneys general and retired federal judges and prosecutors *** in support of the appeal to the 10th Circuit by Weldon Angelos, the first-time offender sentenced to 55 years’ imprisonment for marijuana sales under federal mandatory sentencing statutes” — here.
“The Supreme Court Shortlist: The views of the likely candidates to succeed Rehnquist.” Emily Bazelon and David Newman have this “assessment” online today at Slate.
On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition“: The broadcast included segments entitled “Eminent Domain and Property Rights” (featuring Nina Totenberg) and “Rehnquist’s Health Leads to Speculation on Successors.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio clips.
“President’s Prerogative: Bush should ignore the Democrats’ request.” At National Review Online, Edward Whelan has an essay that begins, “The letter from Senate Democrats urging President Bush to ‘consult meaningfully with Senators on both sides of the aisle [on judicial nominations] well in advance, especially in the event of a Supreme Court vacancy’ is a clever political ploy.”
In news and commentary from Texas: The Austin American-Statesman reports today that “‘Adios, mofo’ is all the rage; Perry catch phrase catches on.” And columnist John Kelso has an op-ed entitled “This line will haunt Perry, fo’ shizzle.”
In other coverage, DallasNews.com reports that “Gov’s gaffe golden for merchandisers.”
The Sacramento Bee is reporting: Today’s newspaper contains articles headlined “Supreme Court: Irate farmers can’t sue U.S.” and “Supreme Court refuses appeal in 1993 slaying.”
“Court OKs lawyers for indigent defendants; Ruling overturns state appeals law”: The Detroit Free Press contains this article today.
“Senate Panel Girds for Abortion Fight; Amid the possibility of a Supreme Court vacancy, witnesses, including ‘Roe,’ are summoned”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
“Tax court reversal ‘incredible’; Judge alters secret finding in fraud trial”: The Chicago Tribune today contains an article that begins, “During the 1970s and 1980s, Chicagoan Burton Kanter earned a reputation as one of the nation’s top estate tax lawyers, representing an eclectic group of clients, including Hugh Hefner, Bobby Hull and Sam Zell, as well as rock groups Santana and Creedence Clearwater Revival.”
“Justices Back Forced Sale of Property; Cities have the authority to clear land for redevelopment even where blight is not an issue, the Supreme Court rules in a 5-4 vote”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
Today in The Chicago Tribune, Jan Crawford Greenburg reports that “Eminent domain expanded; Court rules cities can seize homes for economic development.”
In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Seizing land for private use OK’d; Court backs city vs. homeowners,” while a related article is headlined “Property seizures must be in public’s good, court warns.”
In The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Michael McGough reports that “Supreme Court upholds eminent domain; Property rights movement suffers narrow defeat,” while a related article is headlined “Eminent domain still divisive issue; Ferlo wants to limit what governments can take.”
The Boston Globe reports that “High court backs seizure of land for development.”
The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court backs eminent domain” and “Plans to build baseball stadium in Southeast receive a boost.” A related editorial is entitled “A win for big government.”
The Washington Post reports that “Court Ruling on Land Pleases D.C. Officials; SE Properties Sought for Stadium and Mall.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Eminent Latitude.”
In The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein reports that “Ruling Allows Governments to Wrest Property from Citizens.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Eminent Danger.”
Newsday reports that “Land’s not your land; Supreme Court rules governments can seize homes from their owners for development.”
The Day of New London, Connecticut contains articles headlined:
The Day also contains a related editorial entitled “Opening The Door Wider: U.S. Supremem Court fails to circumscribe the use of eminent domain for economic development, suggesting that maybe Hew London wasn’t the right case.”
In The Hartford Courant, Lynne Tuohy has an article headlined “5-4, For The Takings; High Court: City Can Seize Homes To Boost Economy,” while a related article reports that “‘We’re Not Leaving, Not By A Long Shot,’ Residents Insist.”
The New Haven Register reports that “Cities can seize homes; Supreme Court rules in New London case.”
The Record-Journal of Meriden, Connecticut reports that “Decision could help city in redevelopment project.”
The St. Petersburg Times reports that “Official power to seize land expanded; The Supreme Court narrowly agrees that local governments may take property to foster private development.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Eminent mistake: The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo vs. City of New London deals a blow to private property rights and leaves working-class homeowners unprotected” and an op-ed by columnist Robert Trigaux entitled “Your home could be up for grabs: A newly empowered blessing from the Supreme Court to seize private property in the interest of economic development may come in quite handy in the competitive business recruitment wars.”
The Toronto Globe and Mail reports that “Top court in U.S. rules you can’t fight city hall.”
The Chicago Sun-Times reports that “Court shows homeowners door.”
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that “High court rebuffs homeowners.”
The Detroit News reports that “Ruling allows land to be seized; Officials see the return of eminent domain as a potential boost to economic development, but Michigan laws are strict.”
The Detroit Free Press reports that “Michigan law aids owner in land use; High court backs state constitution.” And columnist Brian Dickerson has an op-ed entitled “How Poletown still haunts us.”
The Oakland (Mich.) Press reports that “Michigan property rights still safe.”
The Kansas City Star reports that “Land can be taken for private projects, court says; Ruling largely validates Merriam, Kansas City, Kan., actions.”
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that “Court expands eminent domain.”
The Houston Chronicle reports that “Home seizure ruling doesn’t play in Texas; After decision, an amendment is quickly proposed to limit powers of eminent domain.”
The Sacramento Bee reports that “Eminent domain powers widened.”
The Naples Daily News contains articles headlined “Supreme Court ruling could have impact in Collier” and “Lee official: Florida law would protect landowners.”
The Asbury Park Press reports that “Government right to seize homes upheld; Supreme Court ruling a blow to foes of Long Branch projects.”
The Daily Texan reports that “Court extends eminent domain to local level; Local leaders can close homes, business for development.”
The New York Times contains an editorial entitled “The Limits of Property Rights.”
The Wall Street Journal contains an editorial entitled “Kennedy’s Vast Domain: The Supreme Court’s reverse Robin Hoods.”
The Cincinnati Enquirer contains an editorial entitled “Court cripples property rights.”
And at Tech Central Station, Stephen Bainbridge has an essay entitled “They Can’t Take That Away From Me… Unless They Can.”
“Court Buttresses Eminent Domain; Local Governments Cleared To Take Private Property If Projects Promise Growth”: Jess Bravin has this article (pass-through link) today in The Wall Street Journal.
