“Justices Hear a Drama Straight From Tabloids”: Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times will contain this article.
Allen Pusey of The Dallas Morning News provides an update headlined “Anna Nicole fights for inheritance in Supreme Court; Ex-Playmate’s been battling stepson for share of $1.6 billion.”
Patty Reinert of The Houston Chronicle provides a news update headlined “Anna Nicole Smith draws crowd; Former Playboy Playmate finds sympathetic audience at Supreme Court.”
Wednesday’s edition of The Telegraph (UK) reports that “Playmate in court over will.”
And E! Online reports that “Anna Nicole Earns Supreme Sympathy.”
“Democrats feel vindicated that redistricting is going before Supreme Court; Bush appointee overruled Justice Department lawyers who thought redrawn Texas districts violated voting rights”: This article will appear Wednesday in The Austin American-Statesman.
And The San Antonio Express-News provides an update headlined “U.S. Supreme Court to hold hearing on Texas redistricting.”
“Extortion laws don’t apply to abortion clinic protests, court rules”: Stephen Henderson of Knight Ridder Newspapers provides this report.
“Vermont Campaign Limits Get Cool Reception at Court”: Linda Greenhouse will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.
And in Wednesday’s edition of USA Today, Joan Biskupic will report that “High court questions Vermont’s campaign finance law.”
“CBS Sues Stern, Sirius Satellite; For Breach of Contract and Fraud”: Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain this article (free access).
And The New York Times will report on Wednesday that “CBS Radio Sues Stern for Breach of Contract.”
Perhaps this explains why I haven’t mentioned more often that “How Appealing” will be hosted elsewhere effective April 20, 2006.
“Justices to Weigh Tax Breaks”: This article will appear Wednesday in The New York Times.
And Patti Waldmeir of Financial Times reports that “Supreme Court to rule on state tax breaks.”
“Anti-abortion activist celebrates ruling, sees Roe being overturned”: The Chicago Tribune on Wednesday will contain an article that begins, “For 20 years, Joseph Scheidler has insisted that he and his fellow believers acted peaceably when they blockaded abortion clinics around the country. On Tuesday the tireless zealot won a victory in the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that, whatever his protests, they did not constitute extortion or racketeering under federal law.”
Tony Mauro is reporting: Via law.com, you can access articles headlined “Supreme Court Rules Hobbs Act Doesn’t Outlaw Anti-Abortion Violence; In another ruling, justices find joint venture pricing is not a per se violation of Sherman Act” and “High Court Questions Limits on Campaign Spending; During arguments in probate case, justices seem sympathetic to Anna Nicole Smith.”
In Wednesday’s edition of The Washington Post: Charles Lane will have a front page article headlined “Anna Nicole Smith’s Supreme Fight; Justices Hear Celebrity’s Bid for Cut of Late Husband’s Riches.”
And in other news, “Companies Contemplate Life Without BlackBerrys.”
“Abortion Foes Win Dispute”: Linda Greenhouse will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.
Today’s rulings of note from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: An opinion issued today begins, “This appeal relates to a three-year investigation of inmate abuse at the United States Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado (‘USP-Florence’), that resulted in charges against ten former correctional officers for conspiracy and deprivation of inmates’ constitutional rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242.”
And a separate ruling issued today begins, “Several supervisors at Southwest Airlines convinced two Albuquerque police officers to stage an arrest of Marcie Fuerschbach, a Southwest Airlines employee, as part of an elaborate prank that included actual handcuffing and apparent arrest. This was a ‘joke gone bad,’ and turned out to be anything but funny, as Fuerschbach allegedly suffered serious psychological injuries as a result of the prank.”
Available online from National Public Radio: This evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained a segment entitled “Anna Nicole Smith Has Her Day in Supreme Court” featuring Nina Totenberg.
And today’s broadcast of “Talk of the Nation” contained segments entitled “High Court Takes Up Vt. Election Law” (featuring David G. Savage) and “South Dakota Bill Renews Abortion Debate.”
RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.
“Rack and Ruin: The Supreme Court considers Anna Nicole’s surprisingly real claims.” Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.
“Ex-Playmate gets Supreme Court’s ear; Anna Nicole Smith fights for right to sue for share of fortune”: CNN.com provides this report.
“Supreme Court Welcomes Playboy Playmate”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.
“Justices question Vermont’s restrictive campaign finance rules”: Stephen Henderson of Knight Ridder Newspapers provides this report.
“Playmate’s Date With Justice:Thousands march on Washington in support of Anna Nicole Smith.” At Newsweek’s web site, Andy Borowitz has an essay that begins, “As Anna Nicole Smith brought her claim for the fortune of her late husband, Texas billionaire J. Howard Marshall II, to the United States Supreme Court, a broad-based coalition of golddiggers and gigolos marched on Washington to show their support for the former Playboy playmate.”
“Cox appeals ruling on Michigan’s abortion law”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Attorney General Mike Cox filed a brief Monday backing his appeal of a ruling that declared a Michigan abortion law unconstitutional.”
The U.S. Congress considers appeals to be more valuable than trial court litigation: As noted at the home page of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, effective April 9, 2006 the fee for initiating a proceeding in a U.S. Court of Appeals will increase from $250.00 to $450.00 (overlooking for the moment the additional district court fee of $5.00 for filing a notice of appeal).
However, the fee for filing a lawsuit in a U.S. District Court apparently will increase from $250.00 to only $350.00. You can thank the so-called Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 for these filing fee increases.
“High Court Backs Anti-Abortion Protestors”: law.com’s Tony Mauro provides this news update.
“New Florida Town Looks to Ban Abortions”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “If Domino’s Pizza founder Thomas S. Monaghan has his way, a new town being built in a quiet corner of southwest Florida will be governed by strict Catholic principles, particularly when it comes to sex.”
“Animal-rights group on trial in attacks; A Phila. animal-rights group calls its tactics free speech; U.S. prosecutors say it incited violence”: This quite interesting article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.
“High court’s hot potato: redistricting; A Texas case, argued Wednesday, could hand House seats to Democrats – or unleash more gerrymandering.” Warren Richey will have this article in Wednesday’s edition of The Christian Science Monitor.
And at his “Election Law” blog, Rick Hasen has a post titled “Thoughts on the Texas Redistricting Cases.”
“Judge rejects Pa. gun-buying terms; Requiring prospective owners to provide their Social Security numbers violates the U.S. Privacy Act, the judge ruled”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer. You can access last Friday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania at this link.
“South Dakota and Abortion”: This lengthy segment (available in both RealPlayer and Windows Media formats) appeared on today’s broadcast of the public radio program “On Point.”
“High Court Rules Against Abortion Clinic”: This segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Law Professor Jonathan Turley appeared on today’s broadcast of the public radio program “Here & Now.”
“Anna Nicole Smith’s Supreme Effort”: This segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Dahlia Lithwick appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day.”
“The warning this opinion provides is that in order to further the purposes of the [Federal Arbitration Act] and to protect arbitration as a remedy we are ready, willing, and able to consider imposing sanctions in appropriate cases.” A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit today issued an opinion advising that the court is “exasperated by those who attempt to salvage arbitration losses through litigation that has no sound basis in the law applicable to arbitration awards” and that, in the future, those who resort to court after losing at arbitration likely will face sanctions in the absence of any valid basis for judicial relief.
“Mass murderer judged unfit for execution; George E. Banks, who killed 13 people in 1982, is ‘a very mentally sick man,’ the judge said”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.
The Times Leader of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania reports today that “Ruling puts execution in doubt; Judge says mass murderer does not understand his fate; Prosecutors vow to appeal.”
And The Citizens Voice of Wilkes-Barre reports today that “Banks not mentally competent to be executed, judge decides.”
This death row inmate is the same individual involved in Beard v. Banks, which in 2004 produced a 5-4 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Reuters is reporting: James Vicini reports that “Supreme court rules for anti-abortion groups.”
And in other news, “US Court Rejects Shell, Texaco Venture Liability.”
“Justices Weigh Vt. Campaign Spending Cap”: The Associated Press provides this report.
“Vermont in trouble, Vickie Lynn in clover?” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
“Supreme Court Hears Ex-Playmate’s Case”: Gina Holland of The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “With an oil fortune on the line, former stripper Anna Nicole Smith encountered a sympathetic audience at the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Several justices said they were concerned that the one-time Playboy Playmate was kept from pursuing a piece of her late husband’s fortune.”
“State seeks bigger share of Newark woman’s damages”: The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette today contains an article that begins, “That Heidi Ahlborn had a claim for damages was clear before the shards of glass and metal from her car hit the pavement, her lawyer told the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday. But a decade after the Newark teenager’s car crash, it remains to be seen how much of her $550,000 settlement she will get to keep. The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in a case, Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services v. Ahlborn, that tests the ability of state agencies to be reimbursed for money they spend on patients under Medicaid, the health-care program for the poor.”
And in other coverage, The Batesville Daily Guard-Record reports that “Attorney presents case to Supreme Court.”
“Security for Judiciary is Top Priority; Acting Head of U.S. Marshals Outlines Plan”: Lawrence Hurley has this article today in The Daily Journal of California.
