Available online from law.com: An article reports that “For States, Competing at the High Court Means Hiring Private Firms; Complexity of inmate’s ADA case prompts Ga. attorney general to hire Jones Day lawyer.”
In other news, “Supreme Court May Take Up Transsexual Case; Cincinnati police officer sues department over alleged discrimination based on desire to switch genders.”
An article reports that “FBI Demands for Internet Data Faulted in 2nd Circuit Argument; Government is appealing two decisions on sending of National Security Letters to Internet service providers.”
And in other news, “Latest Plan to Split 9th Circuit Aims to Sidestep Debate.”
“Alito’s colleagues say political labels don’t apply”: This article will appear Friday in The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Available online from National Public Radio: Today’s broadcast of “Talk of the Nation” contained a segment entitled “The Making of a Successful Justice” featuring, among others, Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen.
And this evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained segments entitled “‘Gang of 14’ Senators Consider Alito, Filibuster“; “Pryor, ‘Gang of 14’ Senator, on Alito“; and “Alito Would Undermine Right to Choose” (commentary from Kate Michelman).
RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.
“Court backs US right to bar foreign student pilots”: Reuters provides this report. My earlier coverage is here.
“Alito Hearings to Begin in January”: The Associated Press provides this report, which notes that a confirmation vote in the U.S. Senate is likely to occur on January 20, 2006. That sigh of relief you just heard is from the law clerks for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, because she has just received an extra month in which to get opinions out the door before her vote’s significance in cases still pending before the U.S. Supreme Court evaporates. The Court’s calendar for the October Term 2005 can be viewed here.
“Should senators ask Alito about the role of his faith? If confirmed, he would become the fifth Catholic among the nine justices on the Supreme Court.” Warren Richey will have this article Friday in The Christian Science Monitor.
“The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee says confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito will begin on Jan. 9”: The Associated Press has issued this news alert.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit wants you: Today that court posted to its web site a notice that begins, “Chief Judge Michel invites members of the bar to attend a discussion at the court on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 2:00 pm in Courtroom 201. Topics to be discussed include: effective appellate advocacy, the attorney’s role as an officer of the court, and the court’s internal process.” The full notice includes RSVP instructions.
The Associated Press is reporting: Gina Holland reports that “Alito Could Shift Court on Major Issues.” Meanwhile, in related coverage, “White House Wants Alito Hearings by Dec.”
And in other news, “Arkansas Seeks to Sue Oklahoma.”
“A Narrowed Rift: President Bush and conservatives and the future of the Court.” Robert H. Bork has this essay today at National Review Online.
“Lesbian Partner May Seek Parental Rights”: The Associated Press provides this report on today’s ruling (majority opinion; dissenting opinion) of the Supreme Court of Washington State.
Sixth Circuit says court-ordered date-certain deadlines are binding, even if they fall on a weekend or holiday: A particular Federal Rule of Civil Procedure provides if the deadline for filing something with the court is set as a fixed number of days after the happening of an event, and if that deadline falls on a weekend or holiday, the deadline is extended until the next business day that is neither a weekend nor a holiday.
Today the Sixth Circuit was faced with a case in which a federal district court had stated that the deadline for doing something was a specific date, and it just so happened that the date fell on a Saturday. Those who waited until the next business day after the Saturday deadline to take the action required argued that the aforementioned rule required that their filings be treated as timely. The trial court agreed. But today, a unanimous three-judge Sixth Circuit panel disagreed, in a ruling that you can access here.
“Alito as government lawyer: ’84 broadcast-regulation case.” The First Amendment Center offers this analysis.
This just in — “Samuel Alito Is No Sandra Day O’Connor”: The organization People For the American Way has issued this news release today.
With apologies to Howard Fineman: The blog “A Progressive on the Prairie” offers a post titled “Nomination info sources.”
“Important Interview With Justice Kennedy”: Orin Kerr provides the details here at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. retroactively recuses from case in which he participated in the granting of certiorari, causing his colleagues on the U.S. Supreme Court to withdraw the earlier grant of cert. and to grant cert. anew: The order, issued late yesterday, states in full:
Having been advised by the Chief Justice that he now realizes that he should have recused himself from participation in this case, and does now recuse himself, the Court vacates its order of Monday, October 31, 2005. The Court has reconsidered the petition for certiorari, which is granted but limited to question three as presented in the petition. The Chief Justice has not participated in the vote to withdraw the order of October 31, 2005 or in the instant reconsideration of the petition for certiorari.
Lyle Denniston provides further coverage in this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
Ninth Circuit holds that California law criminalizing knowingly false speech critical of peace officer conduct is unconstitutional under the First Amendment: Today’s ruling, written by Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel, can be accessed here. The court found a First Amendment violation because it is not a crime in California to give knowingly false speech supportive of peace officer conduct. And for all that I know, it is not a crime in California to give knowingly false speech that is indifferent toward peace officer conduct. The First Amendment concerns are endless.
In non-Alito news from New Jersey: The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger reports today that “Marshall death sentence is tossed; Court says defense ‘doomed’ wife killer.” And The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “3d Circuit throws out ’86 death sentence; Faulting Robert O. Marshall’s lawyer, judges ordered a new penalty trial.” The crime was the subject of the book “Blind Faith” by Joe McGinniss.
Meanwhile, in other news, The Star-Ledger reports today that “Court upholds voting ban for felons; Panel says law doesn’t discriminate against African-Americans, Hispanics.” You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, at this link.
“Libby’s Judge Known for Tough Sentences”: Josh Gerstein has this article today in The New York Sun.
“Two GOP Senators Oppose Alito Filibuster”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has an article that begins, “A group of centrist senators who halted a previous filibuster fight is making plans for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, but at least two of the group’s Republicans say their decision is already made: no filibuster.” The article goes on to report that “The defection of even two members of the group, which decided earlier in the year to support filibusters only in ‘extraordinary circumstances,’ would virtually ensure that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., would win a filibuster showdown.”
Available online at Slate: Henry Blodget has a moneybox essay entitled “Sam Alito, Financial Whiz: Why his great investment strategy suggests he’ll be a good justice.”
Timothy Noah has a chatterbox essay entitled “Alito’s Secret Pinko Past! ‘[A]ction must be taken on many fronts now to preserve privacy.’”
And William Saletan has an essay entitled “Right to Wife: Why does Judge Alito treat women like girls?”
“Nice Disguise: Alito’s frightening niceness.” Law Professor Andrew M. Siegel will have this essay (pass-through link) in the November 14, 2005 issue of The New Republic.
Available online from National Public Radio: Today’s broadcast of “Morning Edition” contained a segment entitled “Alito’s Potential Impact on States’ Rights Issues” featuring Law Professor Michael Gerhardt.
And yesterday evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained a segment entitled “Specter on Alito Confirmation Hearings” featuring Nina Totenberg.
RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.
“As a Princeton student, Alito championed right to privacy; He wrote report warning of a great threat to America”: Today The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger, in addition to the articles I earlier noted here, contains this article.
“Judges Question Patriot Act in Library and Internet Case”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
And today in The Hartford Courant, Lynne Tuohy reports that “Patriot Act Issues Arise In Court.”
“Reaction to Alito Nomination Generally Favorable; Initial Public Reaction Considerably Less Favorable Than for Roberts”: The Washington Post provides this news update reporting the results of the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Crossword puzzle author is pro-Alito: Today in The Los Angeles Times, David Levinson Wilk has an op-ed entitled “Across or down, Alito fills the bill; Some people find themselves at crossword purposes over the Supreme Court nominee.”
“Alito Has Kept His Politics to Himself; The high court nominee followed his father’s example of not sharing his opinions”: This lengthy profile appears today in The Los Angeles Times. David G. Savage reports that “In College Paper, Alito Affirmed Some Gay Rights; A 1972 report by a Princeton group examining privacy issues urged the repeal of laws against homosexual sex and bias in hiring.” And in related coverage, “No Rush on Nominee, Senate Democrats Say; Republicans want a vote on Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. by Christmas; Lawmakers’ holiday travel plans could complicate the process.”
Today in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Michael McGough reports that “Alito’s abortion views may not be far from O’Connor’s.”
The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger reports that “On Capitol Hill, nominee raises questions of ideology.” And an article is headlined “How a single opinion molds the Alito debate; Abortion case decision cited by those for and against his nomination.”
The Chicago Tribune reports that “Nominee believes in right to privacy, Durbin says.”
The Lincoln Journal Star reports that “Hagel endorses Alito; Nelson gets positive vibes.”
USA Today reports that “Alito nomination tugs on ties binding moderate ‘Gang of 14.’”
The Boston Globe contains articles headlined “Centrists seen shying from filibuster; Alito winning plaudits from key senators” and “Plaintiff alleges Alito conflict; Says judge should have recused self.”
The Charlotte Observer reports that “Graham hopes to rein in gang; Senator hopes to quell any filibuster thoughts at meeting today.”
Newsday contains an article headlined “Scrutiny for Alito’s NJ cases; Data show number of prosecutions by his office dipped 30% in his first year as Jersey’s U.S. attorney.”
The Washington Times contains articles headlined “Gang of 14 Democrat at ‘comfort level’ with Alito” and “Alito’s dissent in ’91 case crucial.”
The Yale Daily News reports that “Alito was quiet scholar; Nominee’s Law School years shed light on conservative leanings.”
The Daily Princetonian reports that “Nominee chaired conference recommending protection of privacy, gay rights.”
The Seattle Times reports that “UW professor calls nominee ‘thoughtful.’”
The Durham Herald-Sun reports that “Alito ‘very quiet and reserved,’ says UNC prof, a former colleague.”
The Asbury Park Press reports that “Teacher debated high court nominee; Was student at rival high school.”
And Dana Milbank’s “Washington Sketch” column today in The Washington Post is headlined “The Life of the Party? Only in the ‘Grand Old’ Sense.”
Available online from FindLaw: Commentator Marci Hamilton has an essay entitled “The Supreme Court Hears Its First Religion Case with Chief Justice Roberts at the Helm.”
And Scott Gerber has an essay entitled “Why the Senate Should Confirm Judge Alito: The Democrats Liked Him Before, and They Don’t Need to Love Him Now.”
“Judges: Alito Unlikely to Overturn Roe.” Hope Yen of The Associated Press provides this report.
And The AP’s Jesse J. Holland has a report headlined “Two GOP Senators: No Filibuster on Alito.”
This judge isn’t anti-marriage; if anything perhaps he’s too pro-marriage: The Salt Lake Tribune today contains an article headlined “Court gets to rule on polygamy, judgeship; Utah justices have 90 days to decide if Hildale man with three wives should lose job.”
And The Deseret Morning News reports today that “Justice may be disbarred; Utah Supreme Court to decide if Hildale polygamist will be ousted.”
In news from the Ninth Circuit: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has articles headlined “Sex questions found not to violate parents’ rights; Despite indecorum of parts of survey, court denies appeal” and “New murder trial for disabled man.”
Henry Weinstein of The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Murder Conviction Reversed; A paraplegic who fatally shot two Riverside police officers from his wheelchair received an ineffective defense, an appeals court has ruled.”
And The Press-Enterprise of Riverside, California reports that “Conviction thrown out in deaths of two officers.” Yesterday’s Ninth Circuit ruling can be accessed here.
