Those unfavorable judicial nominee ratings prove costly: The AP provides an article headlined “Bar Association Agrees to Pay $185G Fine” that reports, “The Justice Department and the American Bar Association agreed Friday that the association, the nation’s largest group of lawyers, had indeed violated a 1996 court order that settled a government antitrust suit against the ABA. The ABA even agreed to pay $185,000 to reimburse the government for its costs in investigating what the Justice Department called a case of civil contempt of court.”
“Bush Order Would Limit Property Seizures”: The Associated Press provides this report on an executive order that the White House issued today.
In today’s mail: “The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law,” written by attorney Mark Herrmann.
“U.S. Asks for Top Security in Albany Terrorism Case; Defense lawyers balk at government plan to require monitor’s presence during review of papers, client talks”: law.com published this report back in October 2004.
Today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a per curiam decision denying a writ of mandamus that one of the defendants requested ordering the district court to vacate orders that are based on confidential documents, arguments, and decision memoranda, and ordering the United States to abandon a communications monitoring program described in newspaper articles.
Additional background on the case is available in a USA Today article from August 2004 headlined “Federal agents raid mosque in Albany; 2 arrested” and in Associated Press reports from August 2004 headlined “Two Albany mosque leaders indicted on 19 counts” and “Prosecutors admit possible evidence error in N.Y. terror sting.”
“[T]he jury’s conclusion about the plaintiff’s level of emotional trauma might well reflect its view concerning the reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct.” The final portion of this opinion that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued today contains an interesting discussion of the potential for overlap between a jury’s award of damages for emotional distress and what a jury might have awarded had it been advised (as it should have been but was not at the original trial) that an award of punitive damages in favor of the plaintiff was appropriate.
In any event, that part of today’s First Circuit ruling reminded me of a working paper by Law Professor Catherine M. Sharkey titled “Crossing the Punitive-Compensatory Divide.”
Kelo plus one: One year ago today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its ruling in Kelo v. City of New London. My posts from one year ago collecting press coverage of the ruling can be accessed here, here, and here.
The Fox Theatre in Atlanta, Georgia is sufficiently accessible to disabled patrons, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has ruled: You can access today’s decision at this link.
Eleventh Circuit affirms federal criminal sentence imposed for orchid-related crime: Fans of the movie “Adaptation” and others can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit at this link.
“High Court Draws Line On Bosses’ Retaliation; Discrimination Decision Could Affect Dealings In and Out of Workplace”: Jess Bravin and Ben Winograd have this article (pass-through link) today in The Wall Street Journal. Earlier today, I collected additional press coverage at this link.
“Court Rejects SEC Hedge-Fund Rule”: The AP provides this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.
In news from Italy: The Associated Press reports that “Watchdog Protests Blogger Conviction.”
Did the State of Texas execute Carlos De Luna for a crime he did not commit? The Chicago Tribune on Sunday will begin a three-part series arguing that the answer is “yes.” The case will also be the subject of a report on tonight’s broadcast of the ABC News “Nightline” program. The Tribune’s web site provides this preview.
“Suspect in Nev. Shooting Caught in Mexico”: The Associated Press provides this report.
And The Reno Gazette-Journal provides news updates headlined “Mack surrenders in Mexico“; “Police: Mack booked into Dallas jail“; and “Mack could be transported to Reno today.”
“Leishmaniasis, a parasitic disease caused by obligate intracellular protozoa, is transmitted by the bite of some species of phlebotomine sand flies.” So reports the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in a document available online at this link.
Today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion reinstating a portion of a Federal Tort Claims Act suit brought by the family of a former U.S. Army serviceman who contracted Leishmaniasis while serving in the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and then transmitted the disease to his family after being discharged from the Army.
The exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment for a search of the passenger compartment of a car incident to a lawful custodial arrest applies only if the search follows the arrest, a divided three-judge D.C. Circuit panel holds: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued this decision today.
“North Carolina can keep its Bill of Rights; Appeals court reaffirms claim”: The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina contains this article today. My earlier coverage appears here.
“Supreme Court Sides with Worker in Retaliation Suit”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition.”
“Mayor wants cross case heard by U.S. high court; Symbol comes down if no action by Aug. 1”: The San Diego Union-Tribune today contains an article that begins, “San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders is taking the city’s fight to keep a cross atop Mount Soledad to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
“Supreme Court Gives Employees Broader Protection Against Retaliation in Workplace”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.
Today in The Washington Post, Charles Lane reports that “Court Expands Right to Sue Over Retaliation on the Job.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Justices Define Employer Reprisal Liberally; In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court says all but trivial actions taken against a worker filing a discrimination claim are illegal.”
Joan Biskupic of USA Today reports that “Court eases worker lawsuits; Issue is retaliation after complaints.”
Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “High court eases path for workers’ discrimination suits; Employees can sue for retaliation even if bosses don’t fire them, the justices ruled Thursday.”
The Chicago Tribune reports that “High court widens protection for workers against retaliation.”
The Houston Chronicle reports that “Ruling widens ability to sue; Decision favors workers, defines retaliation broadly.”
The Commercial Appeal of Memphis reports that “In landmark case, court sides with Memphis woman.”
And law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “Supreme Court Sides With Employees in Discrimination Case.”
“Court doesn’t tip hand on voting-rights case; Ruling to have effect on General Plan Initiative”: Today’s edition of The Monterey County Herald contains an article that begins, “On the day the House of Representatives postponed renewal of the Voting Rights Act, the landmark 1965 law that protected minority voters against discrimination, a full panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals debated whether the law applies to recall petitions.”
The Los Angeles Times is reporting: Today’s newspaper contains articles headlined “Three Las Vegas Judges Face High Court Review; In response to a Times investigation, Nevada’s justices want the senior jurists to answer conflict-of-interest and favoritism allegations” and “Voided Sale of PBS Station to Be Appealed; An O.C. college district will fight a televangelist firm’s challenge to the sale of KOCE-TV.”
“Not a usual day in court: Federal building locked down when suspect runs.” This article appears today in The Chicago Tribune.
And The Chicago Sun-Times reports today that “Man sets off courthouse lockdown.”
“Ruling Opens Door to Deportations; Justices Say Immigration Law Can Be Applied Retroactively”: Charles Lane has this article today in The Washington Post.
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Supreme Court Upholds Strict Deportation Law; An illegal immigrant is subject to a policy passed after his arrival and cannot remain, justices rule, despite a job and family here.”
The Standard-Examiner of Ogden, Utah reports that “Supreme Court ruling hits home; Husband barred from returning to Ogden family.”
The Salt Lake Tribune contains articles headlined “Door shut: Court upholds Ogden man’s deportation; Living, working and having a family in U.S. can’t excuse breaking the law, justices rule” and “Latinos say immigration laws often confusing, anti-family.”
The Deseret Morning News reports that “Deportee can’t come home; Supreme Court ruling keeps the ex-Ogden man from his family.”
Patty Reinert of The Houston Chronicle reports that “High court spurns deportee’s return; 8-1 decision is seen as a blow to illegal immigrants.”
The San Antonio Express-News reports that “High court upholds ’97 migrant deadline.”
Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Supreme Court’s tough line on deportees; Thursday’s ruling, expelling a man deported two decades ago, could penalize thousands of illegal immigrants.”
And The Washington Times reports that “Court backs deporting longtime illegal alien.”
“Justices Drop Consideration of Boundaries for Patents”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
And law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “High Court Dismisses Patent Case.”
“Timeless Art, Frozen in Time (for Now)”: The New York Times today contains a Day Trip essay by Fred A. Bernstein that begins, “Even before I got to the big wrought-iron gate, two myths had been shattered. The Barnes Foundation — the embattled art museum with one of the world’s greatest collections — is often portrayed as both hard to get to and the bane of its neighbors in Merion, a wealthy old suburb of Philadelphia.”
“Doctors See Way to Cut Suffering in Executions”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
“Off the Deep End: Lawyers took our diving board.” Steve Moore has this op-ed today in The Wall Street Journal.
“A Supreme Court Majority Rejects Evidence of On-The-Scene Accuser Statements, But Justice Thomas Seeks More Protection for Domestic Violence Victims”: Julie Hilden has this essay online today at FindLaw.
