How Appealing



Monday, April 17, 2006

“The world in their sights: Flushed with success, the US anti-abortion movement is radically expanding its goals.” Cristina Page has this essay in Tuesday’s edition of The Guardian (UK).

Posted at 10:45 PM by Howard Bashman



“This case concerns whether a religious student organization may compel a public university law school to fund its activities and to allow the group to use the school’s name and facilities even though the organization admittedly discriminates in the selection of its members and officers on the basis of religion and sexual orientation.” Today the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California answered “no” in a lawsuit brought by the Christian Legal Society Chapter of University of California, Hastings College of the Law. You can access today’s ruling at this link. Some additional background about the case can be accessed here.

Posted at 9:05 PM by Howard Bashman



“UA policy on campus speeches ruled illegal”: Saturday’s issue of The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette contained an article that begins, “The University of Arkansas at Fayetteville’s policy restricting how often outside individuals or groups can speak on campus is unconstitutional, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday.” My earlier coverage is here.

Posted at 8:54 PM by Howard Bashman



“US detainees are no threat, but lose appeal; US Supreme Court declines to take up case of China’s Uighurs, who remain at Guantanamo because they have no place to go”: Warren Richey will have this article Tuesday in The Christian Science Monitor.

Posted at 8:35 PM by Howard Bashman



Who will speak up on behalf of the fundraising needs of organizations suspected of supporting terrorism? I count at least five judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, dissenting today from an order denying rehearing en banc in United States v. Afshari. Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski wrote the dissent.

The three-judge panel’s opinion, which remains the law of the Ninth Circuit, originally issued on December 20, 2004 and then experienced a few amendments from the panel, resulting in a final version that you can access here. My coverage of the panel’s original ruling is at this link.

Posted at 4:35 PM by Howard Bashman



Programming note: I will be in court for the first part of this afternoon. Additional posts will appear after I return to the office.

Posted at 12:24 PM by Howard Bashman



“Hearing Is Believing; Seeing is Even Better”: Today in The Daily Journal of California, Brent Kendall has an article that begins, “There was no shortage of journalists on hand in the Supreme Court two months ago when Justice David H. Souter made a comment about polluters during a debate over the Clean Water Act. But what exactly the soft-spoken New Englander said in the cavernous courtroom on Feb. 21 all depends on which news report you read.”

The article provides some great examples of a central point of my law.com “On Appeal” essay published today under the headline “Should Congress Mandate Supreme Court TV? Will original understanding go high-definition?

Posted at 10:30 AM by Howard Bashman



“Supreme Court Will Hear Court Button Case”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The Supreme Court said Monday it will decide if a convicted California killer deserves a new trial because the victim’s family members wore photo buttons at his first trial.”

Posted at 10:20 AM by Howard Bashman



Today’s U.S. Supreme Court Order List and per curiam opinion: You can access today’s Order List at this link. The Court granted review in three cases and called for the views of the Solicitor General in two other, apparently interrelated cases. In one of the cases in which certiorari was granted, both the Chief Justice and Justice Stephen G. Breyer are recused.

The Court today also summarily vacated a judgment under review from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by means of a per curiam opinion in Gonzales v. Thomas, No. 05-552.

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court grants three cases, acts on asylum issue.”

Posted at 10:08 AM by Howard Bashman



“Guantanamo Men Lose Supreme Court Appeal” Gina Holland of The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday from two Chinese Muslims who were mistakenly captured as enemy combatants more than four years ago and are being held at the U.S. prison in Cuba.”

Posted at 10:02 AM by Howard Bashman



“Should Congress Mandate Supreme Court TV? Will original understanding go high-definition?” Today’s brand new installment of my weekly “On Appeal” column for law.com can be accessed here.

Posted at 7:10 AM by Howard Bashman