Access online the audio of today’s oral argument in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Planned Parenthood v. Rounds: You can access the audio by clicking here (Windows Media format).
According to the web site of the South Dakota Attorney General, “Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit in June of 2005, challenging the amendments to the state’s informed consent statute pertaining to abortions. The Plaintiffs are challenging the provisions of the new informed consent statute which require, among other things, that the abortion provider advise the prospective patient, in writing, that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.” Now before the Eighth Circuit is South Dakota’s appeal from a federal district judge’s entry of a preliminary injunction against certain provisions of this law.
On remand for reconsideration in light of in Gonzales v. Raich, three-judge Eleventh Circuit panel disavows its earlier decision holding unconstitutional as exceeding the U.S. Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause a law making intrastate possession of child pornography a federal crime: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit at this link. Today’s ruling affirms the defendant’s criminal conviction.
Back in October 2004, the identical three-judge panel had reversed the defendant’s conviction, holding that based on the facts of the case the conviction “amount[ed] to an unconstitutional exercise of the Commerce Clause.” You can access the original ruling here, and my coverage of that ruling from October 2004 is here.
“Appeals court denies inmate’s request”: The Raleigh News & Observer provides an update that begins, “Death row inmate Willie Brown Jr.’s execution is set to go forward at 2 a.m. Friday after a federal appeals court denied his request for a delay today.”
Fourth Circuit Judge M. Blane Michael dissented from the three-judge panel’s order, and in his dissenting opinion Judge Michael writes, “The clear weight of evidence, however, reveals that the State’s use of the BIS monitor will not adequately ensure that Brown will remain unconscious throughout his execution.”
“Not So Friendly Amici: Look who’s filing Supreme Court briefs now.” Daveed Gartenstein-Ross has this essay in the April 24, 2006 issue of The Weekly Standard.
“The Abuse Excuse: Zacarias Moussaoui’s lawyers float the ‘Impoverished French Muslim Syndrome.'” Law Professor Alan M. Dershowitz has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate today.
The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Appeals Court Weighs Abortion Law Question“; “Defense Rests in Moussaoui Sentence Trial“; and “Ex-Enron CEO Skilling Reiterates Innocence.”
Learn who will be recommending the denial of your cert. petitions next Term: At the blog “Prettier Than Napoleon,” Amber Taylor provides an “updated list of the OT 2006 Supreme Court clerks.”
“State Supreme Court removes Detroit judge from bench; Psychiatric exam ordered for Judge Bradfield”: The Detroit Free Press provides this news update.
And The Detroit News provides an update headlined “Detroit judge ordered to get psychiatric exam.”
The Associated Press is reporting: David Kravets has an article headlined “Court Rejects ‘Friends’ Trash Talk Case.”
And in other news, an article headlined “Mich. High Court Suspends District Judge” begins, “The state Supreme Court ordered a psychiatric exam Thursday for a judge accused of violating the state judicial code by cursing at Detroit Deputy Mayor Anthony Adams when he parked in a spot reserved for judges.”
On the menu at this martial arts banquet — pain and suffering: Because that is to be expected at a martial arts banquet, today a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirms the entry of summary judgment against a plaintiff who sustained serious bodily injury during a friendly post-dinner demonstration. You can access the ruling at this link.
“Gov’t Concedes No Moussaoui-Reid Evidence”: The Associated Press provides this report.
Ninth Circuit grants rehearing en banc in election law case of Padilla v. Lever: Today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit can be accessed here.
You can access the original three-judge panel’s ruling in the case at this link. Law Professor Rick Hasen’s “Election Law” blog recently noted that rehearing en banc in Padilla was a good possibility. I would expect to see coverage of today’s developments soon at Rick’s blog.
“May a public high school prohibit students from wearing T-shirts with messages that condemn and denigrate other students on the basis of their sexual orientation?” Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing for the majority on a three-judge panel, today issued an opinion that begins:
May a public high school prohibit students from wearing T-shirts with messages that condemn and denigrate other students on the basis of their sexual orientation? Appellant in this action is a sophomore at Poway High School who was ordered not to wear a T-shirt to school that read, “BE ASHAMED, OUR SCHOOL EMBRACED WHAT GOD HAS CONDEMNED” handwritten on the front, and “HOMOSEXUALITY IS SHAMEFUL” handwritten on the back. He appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. Because he is not likely to succeed on the merits, we affirm the district court’s order.
Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski dissents in an opinion that begins:
While I find this a difficult and troubling case, I can agree with neither the majority’s rationale nor its conclusion. On the record to date, the school authorities have offered no lawful justification for banning Harper’s t-shirt and the district court should therefore have enjoined them from doing so pending the outcome of this case. Harper, moreover, raised a valid facial challenge to the school’s harassment policy, and the district court should have enjoined the policy as well.
These opinions in Harper v. Poway Unified School District issued today in typescript format.
“Roberts Names Federal Court Administrator”: Gina Holland of The Associated Press provides this report.
“Based on the totality of the undisputed circumstances, particularly the fact the Friends production was a creative workplace focused on generating scripts for an adult-oriented comedy show featuring sexual themes, we find no reasonable trier of fact could conclude such language constituted harassment directed at plaintiff because of her sex within the meaning of the FEHA.” The Supreme Court of California‘s unanimous decision today in Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions can be accessed here.
“Jane Doe” a no-go: The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Judge Dismisses Sex Video Privacy Lawsuit” that begins, ” An invasion of privacy lawsuit filed by a woman who claims she participated in a sex video with Scott Stapp and Kid Rock was dismissed by a judge who said the woman cannot sue if she remains anonymous.”
“Case takes students to Supreme Court”: The Yale Daily News today contains an article that begins, “In sifting through their inboxes last spring, 10 Yale Law School students came across an e-mail unlike any they had received before. The author, Neal Katyal LAW ’95, had a favor to ask. Help me to defend Osama Bin Laden’s former driver, he said. And spend hours every week doing so, on top of rigorous law school classes and summer internships.”
Just another fun-filled day of collegiality on the Supreme Court of Alabama: Yesterday’s issue of The Decatur Daily contained an article headlined “Tom Woodall criticizes Justices Parker, Moore” that begins, “Justice Tom Woodall isn’t running against Justice Tom Parker or former Chief Justice Roy Moore in the June primaries, but he reserves his most pointed criticisms for them, not his Republican opponent.”
“South Dakota abortion case heard by appeals court”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in St. Louis was to hear a challenge Thursday to South Dakota’s law requiring abortion doctors to warn patients about abortions.” The article later notes that “A day before the measure became law last summer, U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier in Rapid City, S.D., ruled it was an unconstitutional violation of free speech, and issued a preliminary injunction to block the law.”
Via the Eighth Circuit’s web site, you can access the appellate briefs at this link. The three-judge panel assigned to the case consists of Circuit Judges Diana E. Murphy, Michael J. Melloy, and Raymond W. Gruender. Once that court posts online the oral argument audiotape, I will link to it.
On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition“: This morning’s broadcast contained segments entitled “Sept. 11 Families Make Feelings Felt at Moussaoui Trial” and “Pentagon Releases Names of Guantanamo Prisoners” (RealPlayer required).
With Friends like these: As I noted here yesterday evening, the Supreme Court of California has announced that today it will issue its much-anticipated ruling in Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions.
Earlier coverage of the case from law.com can be found in articles headlined “Crass or Creative? Harassment Case Involving ‘Friends’ Sitcom Reaches Calif. Justices” and “Calif. Justices Hit Rewind on ‘Friends’ Suit.”
Thanks for visiting the new online home of “How Appealing,” now hosted by law.com: For those of you who wish to access this blog using its RSS feed via a news reader (such as this one) or a service such as Bloglines, you can do so by using this link.
“Jury Hears 9/11 Relatives Against Killing Moussaoui”: Neil A. Lewis has this article today in The New York Times.
The Washington Post reports today that “Moussaoui Gets Some Unusual Help; Some 9/11 Relatives Testify for Defense.”
The Los Angeles Times reports that “Families of 9/11 Victims Testify for Moussaoui; His defense hopes some relatives’ messages of healing will soften the jury deciding his fate.”
And The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that “Moussaoui jury urged to resist impulse for revenge.”
“In Last Day of Cross-Examination, Skilling Goes Out Fighting”: The Washington Post contains this article today.
The New York Times reports today that “Prosecutor Suggests Skilling Lied About Why He Quit.”
The Los Angeles Times reports that “Prosecutor, Skilling Duel Over Trading; Enron’s ex-CEO denies that he lied in public statements about the California energy crisis.”
The Houston Chronicle reports that “Prosecutor accuses Skilling of lying about reason he left.”
And USA Today reports that “Skilling asked about reasons for departure; Executive left four months before Enron bankruptcy.”
“Ryan’s lawyers took aim at jurors; Unsealed filings show bid to dump 4 others”: This article appears today in The Chicago Tribune, along with an article headlined “Ryan jury shake-up could stand up on appeal, experts say.”
And The Chicago Sun-Times today contains articles headlined “Defense challenged 8 jurors” and “Radio caller isn’t talking much now.” In addition, columnist Mary Mitchell has an essay entitled “Let’s hope we’ve seen the last of the lying juror.” Columnist Mark Brown has an essay entitled “Ryan jurors could probably use trip to Jamaica.” And columnist Michael Sneed has an essay entitled “Ryan back home in Kankakee.”
On the editorial page of The Los Angeles Times: In today’s newspaper, an editorial entitled “Not the cardinal’s rules” begins, “His last-ditch appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court rejected, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony may soon find himself at the mercy of a far less exalted body: the civil jury.”
And an editorial entitled “Judging juries” begins, “You don’t have to be A social scientist to realize that racially diverse juries might engage in more give-and-take than homogeneous ones.” The editorial proceeds to describe Justice Stephen G. Breyer as carrying on “a lonely campaign … to make it easier to impanel juries that are more reflective of the community.”
“Trial Starts for Man Who Knew Hijackers”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “More than four years after charges were filed, a Jordanian college student went on trial yesterday in Manhattan federal court, accused of lying to a grand jury that was investigating the Sept. 11 attacks. The trial tests the government’s practice of long detention of witnesses in terror cases.”
My earlier coverage of this case can be accessed here.
“Online Registry Or Target List? A Stranger Kills Two Sex Offenders Among 34 He Looked Up in Maine.” This article appears today in The Washington Post.
“Arizona’s Strict Approach to Insanity Defenses Gets a Hearing Before the Supreme Court”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.
Today in The Washington Post, Charles Lane reports that “Supreme Court to Review Insanity Defense.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Insanity-Based Defense Tested in High Court; Arizona argues that a schizophrenic knew right from wrong and can be jailed for murder.”
In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Justices weigh when defendants can assert insanity.”
Patty Reinert of The Houston Chronicle reports that “Supreme Court hears arguments on insanity defense; Case could affect way mentally ill defendants are treated nationwide.”
And The Arizona Republic reports that “U.S. justices look at Ariz. killing; Murderer’s intent focus of insanity case.”
“Twenty-first Century Religion and the Backlash Against Women’s Autonomy: Three Recent Events that Show that Women’s Freedom Is Imperiled.” FindLaw commentator Marci Hamilton has this essay today.
Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro reports that “Supreme Court Examines Insanity Defense.”
Marcia Coyle reports that “High Court to Enter Illegal Worker Debate in RICO Case.”
Shannon P. Duffy reports that “3rd Circuit Allows Age Discrimination Suit to Continue.”
And in other news, “Morgan Lewis Partners Get a Hollywood Ending; Attorneys’ pro bono crusade will be turned into a film starring Matt Damon and Ben Affleck.”
Welcome to the new home of “How Appealing”: Thanks to Betsy Vardell of rubystudio, which operates the servers on which “How Appealing” resides, for making the switch to law.com go so smoothly, and to all the folks at law.com who were involved in the planning and template design. Although there are still a few minor functionality issues to be resolved, the new site is already off to a great start.
At midnight, this blog is moving to its new online home: Following two wonderful years during which this blog was hosted at the Legal Affairs web site, effective Thursday, April 20, 2006 “How Appealing” will be hosted by law.com. This blog’s new address effective at midnight is http://howappealing.law.com. Please adjust your bookmarks accordingly.
Also moving to law.com will be this blog’s entire archives, stretching back to May 6, 2002, and this blog’s “20 questions for the appellate judge” interview archives.
I wish all of my friends at Legal Affairs all the best for the future, and I thank them for their kindness over the past two years. At the same time, I am very much looking forward to the next two years — and perhaps longer — during which time “How Appealing” will be hosted by law.com.
My most sincere thanks of all, however, are reserved for this blog’s readers, because without you this blog would not continue to exist. I thank you for reading, and I hope you will visit often at this blog’s new address.
“Under these circumstances, we determine that we are most faithful to the Fourth Amendment and to the doctrine of the regulatory search exception to the warrant requirement if we conclude that this search and seizure are constitutionally infirm and exclude the fruits of the search and seizure.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued this interesting regulatory search-Fourth Amendment decision today. The decision vacates the criminal conviction of the defendant, who was found to be in possession of twenty-three kilograms of cocaine hidden amidst building materials in his truck’s bed.
“The real Al-Arian: In the plea deal signed by Sami Al-Arian, the former USF professor is revealed as a moral and academic fraud who helped jihadists and then lied about it.” This editorial appears today in The St. Petersburg Times.
