Divided three-judge Tenth Circuit panel issues precedential opinion holding that because Kansas has criminalized all sexual activity with adolescents under sixteen years of age, adolescents do not have a constitutional right to privacy that would prohibit mandatory disclosure of information about voluntary sexual acts with others their age: The case was originally decided by means of a non-precedential opinion issued January 27, 2006. Today’s precedential ruling (available in both HTML and PDF formats) replaces the earlier non-precedential ruling.
In Friday’s edition of The Washington Post: Charles Lane will have an article headlined “Ginsburg Faults GOP Critics, Cites a Threat From ‘Fringe.’”
And in other news, “Attorney Describes 9/11 Lawyer as ‘Vilified’; Martin Is Placed on Leave During Investigation of Her Conduct in Moussaoui Case.”
In news from Connecticut: Today in The Hartford Courant, Lynne Tuohy has an article headlined “Right To Jury Trial Upheld In Trade Secret Case” that begins, “The Connecticut Supreme Court on Wednesday became the first court in the country to rule that parties seeking damages in trade secrets litigation have a state constitutional right to demand a trial by jury.” The ruling, which the Supreme Court of Connecticut posted online yesterday, can be accessed here.
And in other news, The Waterbury Republican-American reports today that “Giordano petitions full appeals court.”
“Congress Supports Solomon Ruling; House votes 347–65 to uphold Supreme Court ruling on military recruiting”: This article appears today in The Harvard Crimson.
“Lawyer in Moussaoui Case Placed on Leave”: The Associated Press provides this report.
“When the law chases the Internet”: This editorial will appear Friday in The Christian Science Monitor.
“Review Set for Fallout of ‘Booker’; Judicial Experts See Much Ado in Congressman’s Blast”: Lawrence Hurley has this article today in The Daily Journal of California.
Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. speaks: The U.S. Supreme Court has begun posting online the transcripts from that Court’s last argument session.
Justice Alito’s very first question from the bench of that Court occured in Rapanos v. United States, No. 04-1034, and was: “Does it make sense to say that any wetlands that it abuts a traditionally navigable water is covered, but a tributary that leads right into a traditionally navigable water is not necessarily covered?”
For those who’d rather read the transcript of Marshall v. Marshall (also known as the Anna Nicole Smith case), No. 04-1544, that transcript can be accessed here, while the transcript in DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, No. 04-1704, is here.
“Moussaoui Case Shows Challenge of Terror Trials”: This segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day.”
“Sen. Dean Johnson’s statements about court stir furor; Dean Johnson said justices told him they wouldn’t overturn state’s same-sex-marriage law”: The Minneapolis Star Tribune today contains an article that begins, “As legislators wrestle with the explosive issue of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson has been caught on a recording telling pastors that there was little need for such a ban because he had been assured by state Supreme Court justices that they would not overturn Minnesota law and allow such unions.” Audio of the state senator’s remarks can be accessed online at this link (mp3 format).
And in other coverage, The St. Paul Pioneer Press reports today that “Johnson remarks target of petition; DFLer offered assurances about marriage law.”
In constitutional challenge to Alabama’s law prohibiting sale of sex toys, federal district court issues “corrected” opinion rejecting plaintiffs’ claims: The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama issued its corrected memorandum opinion yesterday. That court’s original, uncorrected opinion issued February 28, 2006, reaching the same result, can be accessed here. Notwithstanding my affection for sex toy-related judicial opinions (heck, it’s the topic of my “On Appeal” column next week for law.com), I don’t currently have the time to compare those two 56-page rulings to see what has changed. If anyone does perform the comparison, please let me know what you discover.
“Facing Death, His I.Q. Low, Man Wins Rare About-Face”: Yesterday in The New York Times, Adam Liptak had this article. Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit posted online its new ruling (which is dated March 10, 2006). The court’s earlier, now-superseded ruling, can be accessed here.
California inmate’s letters from prison to his attorney-wife are not protected from disclosure under the marital communications privilege: As a result, those portions of the letters that are not protected from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine will be disclosed to the federal government, which is prosecuting the inmate on federal charges, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled today in a decision you can access here.
“11 U.S. judge nominees languish”: Columnist Robert Novak has this op-ed today in The Chicago Sun-Times.
“U.S. implores Moussaoui judge; Prosecutors seek to put ‘untainted’ witness on stand to preserve death penalty option”: This article appears today in The Sacramento Bee. My post from earlier today collecting additional press coverage can be accessed here.
“The Dubitante Opinion”: Law Professor Jason J. Czarnezki has this article (abstract with link for download) online at SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“).
Nudity on appeal: As I mentioned earlier, I really enjoyed my visit on Tuesday to the Ohio Judicial Center, where I observed the Supreme Court of Ohio in action at oral argument and where I had the pleasure of a behind-the-scenes tour of the building, which is quite wonderful.
At oral argument, Ohio’s seven Justices impressed me as well-prepared and thoughtful. This marked the first time that I have personally been in the presence of a State’s highest court on which the majority of the Justices are female, and Ohio is one of several States where that is now the case.
The courtroom itself is a sight to behold. The ceiling murals featured a bit more nudity than I’m used to observing in a courtroom. (Examples can be viewed here, here, and here, while those of you with QuickTime can take a virtual tour of the courtroom via this link.) But, unlike in the Ashcroft Justice Department, there’s no attempt to cover-up the artwork at the Supreme Court of Ohio.
“Bad Standards: The ABA goes to the Grutter.” Abigail Thernstrom and Roger Clegg have this essay today at National Review Online.
“Prosecutors Seek to Revive Moussaoui Case”: The Associated Press provides this report.
The motion for reconsideration that federal prosecutors filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia can be accessed here.
In news from South Dakota: The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls reports today that “Effort emerges to put abortion ban on ballot; Activists on both sides stand by contradictory polls.”
And The Rapid City Journal today contains articles headlined “Abortion-ban bill’s opposition steepest in Black Hills” and “Factions debate contraception ‘loophole.’”
“Surrogate mom who kept kids must pay dad”: The Cleveland Plain Dealer today contains an article that begins, “A surrogate mother breached a contract when she secreted away the triplets she delivered for a would-be Kirtland father and set out to raise them at her Pennsylvania home, an appellate court ruled Wednesday.”
You can access yesterday’s ruling of Ohio’s Ninth District Court of Appeals at this link.
“Rent-to-own stores get ‘capped’; Justices, reversing lower courts, rule such businesses cannot charge 80% or higher interest”: This article appears today in The Newark Star-Ledger.
You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of New Jersey at this link.
On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition“: This morning’s broadcast contained segments entitled “Abortion Rights Activists Use Petition to Fight S.D. Ban“; “Prosecutors Ask for Second Chance at Moussaoui Trial“; and “‘New Testament’ Translated into Gullah” (RealPlayer required).
“Whistle-blower tells jury of ‘blatant’ lies; Watkins, who predicted Enron’s fall, walks jurors through her 2001 meeting with Lay”: Mary Flood has this article today in The Houston Chronicle.
The New York Times today contains an article headlined “Warning on Enron Recounted” and an editorial entitled “All About Andy.”
The Washington Post reports that “Whistle-Blower Shifts Focus of Enron Trial.”
And The Los Angeles Times reports that “Whistle Blower Recounts Enron Tale.”
“Prosecutors Scramble to Salvage 9/11 Case After Ruling”: The Washington Post contains this article today, along with an article headlined “Embattled Lawyer Had Limited Role in 9/11 Trial.”
The New York Times reports today that “Moussaoui Prosecutors Seek Security Officials’ Testimony.” And Adam Liptak has a news analysis headlined “Crossing a Fine Line on Witness Coaching.”
The Los Angeles Times reports that “U.S. Tries to Salvage Unraveling 9/11 Trial; Prosecutors in Zacarias Moussaoui case ask that ban on aviation security witnesses be lifted, or ‘there’s no point for us to go forward.’”
USA Today reports that “Sanction makes Moussaoui case ‘impossible,’ feds say; Prosecutors appeal ruling to bar aviation officials’ testimony.”
The Washington Times reports that “Moussaoui judge asked to allow FAA testimony.”
And The Chicago Tribune contains an editorial entitled “‘My government let me down.’”
“Abortion showdown in Sioux Falls: South Dakota’s only clinic is front and center in national struggle.” This article appears today in The Chicago Tribune.
“Lawyers for Libby Subpoena Reporter and New York Times”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.
“Scalia Rails Against the ‘Judge-Moralist'”: The Associated Press provides this report.
“The Moussaoui Trial: It’s High Time The Death Penalty Is Taken Off the Table.” Edward Lazarus has this essay online at FindLaw today.
