Doctors unwilling to provide abortion services even when essential to preserving the health or life of the mother must be allowed to intervene in California’s challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law, known as the Weldon Amendment, intended to protect the interests of such doctors: Late today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this opinion in typescript format. Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski is the author of the opinion.
The web site “Women’s eNews” offers additional background on the litigation in an article headlined “California Sues U.S. Over Budget’s Abortion Ban.” In January 2005, Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle had an article headlined “Suit hits antiabortion amendment.” And in February 2005, The National Law Journal published an article headlined “Fighting refusal to treat; ‘Conscience’ clauses hit the courts.”
Bankruptcy offers no refuge from monetary sanctions entered against attorney under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and 28 U.S.C. sec. 1927: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.
First Circuit holds that attorney F. Lee Bailey was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ordered him disbarred under its reciprocal discipline rule: You can access today’s ruling at this link. The First Circuit’s decision includes a couple of citations to a case in which the Third Circuit had appointed me to serve as amicus curiae in support of affirmance.
“Law Professor Blogs”: Via this link, you can listen to the mellifluent voices of Law Professors Eugene Volokh, Miriam Cherry, and Susan Crawford. Those law professors are visiting by telephone with attorneys J. Craig Williams and Bob Ambrogi, who host a weekly “radio” program known as “Coast to Coast” at Legal Talk Network.
Shoot: Thwarted in my efforts, despite countless emails from fans of this blog, to be the very final law blogger to broach the subject of the “rock, paper, scissors” discovery order, I shall now draw my coverage of that matter to an end as of this post.
The St. Petersburg Times on Wednesday reported that “Rock, paper, scissors – and gavel – will settle it; An exasperated judge orders two feuding attorneys to resolve their dispute with an old child’s game.”
And The Tampa Tribune on Wednesday published an article headlined “Judge’s Order: Rock, Paper, Scissors.”
Finally, the web site of the World RPS Society can be accessed here.
Readers are now implored to turn their attention back to matters of consequence, such as federal sentencing law.
“Court Orders a New Trial for an Inmate on Death Row”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.
The Washington Post reports today that “Man’s Va. Death Sentence Overturned; 4th Jury Would Decide Whether Killer Is Mentally Retarded.”
The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that “New trial ordered in Atkins case; Jury must determine again if death-row inmate is retarded.”
And The Virginian-Pilot reports that “Court orders new hearing on whether York killer is retarded.”
My earlier coverage appears at this link.
“State court dismisses misconduct complaint against local judge”: The Virginian-Pilot today contains this article reporting on a 4-3 ruling that the Supreme Court of Virginia issued yesterday. The opinion notes that one of the three dissenting justices died on April 9, 2006.
En banc Eleventh Circuit avoids fight over what limits on standing to impose on the “overbreadth doctrine” when considering a First Amendment challenge to a Georgia county’s sign ordinance: Today’s en banc ruling, which may be the first decision for the en banc Eleventh Circuit written by Circuit Judge William H. Pryor, Jr., finds most of the dispute moot. Only Circuit Judge Stanley F. Birch, Jr., in a specially concurring opinion, addresses the merits of the standing and overbreadth issue. The original three-judge panel’s ruling in the case can be accessed here.
Court invites public to view alleged child pornography: The Chicago Tribune today reports that “Judge to let public see video at R. Kelly trial.”
And The Chicago Sun-Times reports today that “Judge says press, public may view R. Kelly tape.”
“Workers’ Lawsuits Can Go Forward; State high court allows staffers who made sexual harassment claims before 2003 to proceed with their cases against employers”: Maura Dolan has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “State high court favors plaintiff in harass case.”
You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of California at this link.
“Secrets and Spies: What we can learn about confidential sources from Wen Ho Lee.” Michael Kinsley has this essay today online at Slate.
The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “1 Court Sides With White House on Wiretaps” and “Okla. Governor Approves Executing Molesters.”
Today’s Ninth Circuit en banc and not quite en banc developments: Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued two en banc rulings in immigration cases. One ruling, involving an eleven-judge en banc panel, was unanimous. The other ruling, involving a fifteen-judge en banc panel (an approach the Ninth began testing recently), produced a dissenting opinion in which four judges joined — so that decision could have been unanimous too if an eleven-judge panel had been used(!).
Even more interestingly, today seven of that court’s most conservative judges dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc in a case in which Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski‘s opinion for a divided three-judge panel begins, “We consider whether police may conduct a search based on less than probable cause of an individual released while awaiting trial. This issue is one of first impression in our circuit. Somewhat surprisingly, it is an issue of first impression in any federal circuit and the vast majority of state courts.”
“Neb. Couple Fights Newborn Blood Test Law”: The Associated Press provides this report.
“Hey, where are the fireworks?” Yesterday in The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, columnist Linda P. Campbell had an op-ed that begins, “Enough with the niceness. More than a week of June is toast, much like those patches of parched lawn in upper-90s heat, and the Supreme Court is still cruising without its usual last-month-of-the-term controversy and convolution.”
“School race case eyed locally; High court decision could play role in Brown v. Board”: This article appears today in The Topeka Capital-Journal.
Today’s rulings of note from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: As with the U.S. Supreme Court, often many of the D.C. Circuit’s most interesting rulings come in the month of June.
Continuing that tradition, today the D.C. Circuit has issued four decisions of note:
1. Ruling on a mandamus petition related to the contentious Indian Trust litigation captioned Cobell v. Norton, a unanimous three-judge panel today issued a decision suppressing three reports that former Special Master Alan Balaran filed in the case because the special master had created a situation in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
2. In today’s second ruling of note, the majority on a divided three-judge panel rejected a challenge to the Federal Communication Commission’s ruling that requires broadband and voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) providers to ensure that law-enforcement officers are able to intercept communications transmitted over the providers’ networks.
3. Today’s third ruling of note affirms the dismissal of a lawsuit against the United States and former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, seeking damages for actions allegedly taken in support of the Pinochet regime in Chile some 30 years ago.
4. And today’s fourth ruling of note orders the dismissal of portions of a lawsuit challenging the manner in which the Superior Court of the District of Columbia has decided to appoint lawyers under the local Criminal Justice Act to handle juvenile delinquency cases.
“Specter ready to force showdown; GOP senator emerges as White House rival on legislative issues”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.
“In At Least One High Court Matter, Scalia Seeks the Shades of Gray”: law.com’s Tony Mauro provides this report.
“Security or coverup? How a murky case became precedent.” Warren Richey had this article yesterday in The Christian Science Monitor.
“Tar Heels wanted for appeals court; Burr, Dole prod president for more N.C. presence”: This article appears today in The Charlotte Observer.
In today’s edition of The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger: An article reports that “Lawyers, judges sing Alito’s praises at homecoming; Supreme Court Justice returns to Jersey roots.”
And an article headlined “A top court liberal voice gets backing; Judiciary panel favors Long’s reappointment” begins, “Justice Virginia Long, a generally liberal voice and a consistent vote against the death penalty, was approved by a Senate committee yesterday for reappointment to the New Jersey Supreme Court.”
“Lawyers Won’t End Squabble, So Judge Turns to Child’s Play”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.
And The Orlando Sentinel yesterday contained an article headlined “Who needs law school? Judge resorts to child’s play.”
My earlier coverage appears here.
“For a Vegas Judge and His Friends, One Good Turn Led to Another; James Mahan got his jobs on the state and federal benches through the connections of old pal George Swarts; Things turned out well for Swarts too”: The Los Angeles Times contains this lengthy article today.
“Specter Offers Compromise on NSA Surveillance”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.
“Delaware Justices Uphold Ruling on Disney Severance”: The New York Times contains this article today.
The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Ruling on Ovitz’s Severance Is Upheld; Delaware’s high court finds that Disney’s board did not betray its duty to investors.”
And The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware reports that “Court’s Disney ruling stands; Decision wraps up lengthy fight over severance package.”
You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Delaware at this link.
“News gives lawyers glimmer of hope for Lay, Skilling”: This article appears today in USA Today.
And last Sunday in The Houston Chronicle, Mary Flood had an article headlined “All rise: Judge garners praise; Jurors, others applaud Lake’s handling of Lay and Skilling’s trial.”
“Akaka Bill fails a vote in the Senate; The measure is not dead but will not be voted on in this session of Congress”: The Honolulu Star-Bulletin provides this news update.
And The Honolulu Advertiser provides a news update headlined “Akaka bill fails to move to Senate floor debate.”
You can access today’s roll call tally from the U.S. Senate at this link.
“Doggone: Judge’s pets must go; Supreme Court, Eastpointe team up to keep her terriers out of courtroom.” This article appears today in The Detroit News.
The Kansas City Star is reporting: Today’s newspaper contains articles headlined “Decision clears lesbian’s path to foster parenthood; Missouri attorney general says new law decriminalizing homosexuality renders moot the case of KC woman” and “High court is last resort for Myrna Dick; Myrna Dick and her family will leave for San Diego a day before the Saturday deadline.”
“Dole, Burr call for more N.C. judges on 4th Circuit court”: The Associated Press provides this report.
The law may yet enforce a remedy in favor of clergyman who claims that he was unlawfully forced to give up his job as a law enforcement officer: Circuit Judge Michael W. McConnell today issued an opinion on behalf of a unanimous three-judge Tenth Circuit panel that begins:
Plaintiff-Appellee Rex Shrum is both a law enforcement officer and a clergyman. After eight apparently successful years of juggling the two responsibilities, his relationship with the management of the police department soured, and the Chief of Police allegedly rearranged Officer Shrum’s work schedule so it would conflict with his duties as a minister. Forced to choose between his police and his ministerial responsibilities, Officer Shrum resigned from the police department and filed this lawsuit. We must now decide whether the City of Coweta and the Chief of Police violated Officer Shrum’s constitutional rights to freedom of association, free exercise of religion, and substantive due process.
You can access the complete ruling at this link.
“Kennedy Made Me Do It: How one Supreme Court Justice makes all conservatives stupid.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Supreme Court Shakespeare: Slate legal writer Dahlia Lithwick talks speech wall, Supreme Court.” This profile appears in the current issue of C-Ville Weekly. Thanks to John Rosenberg for the pointer.
“How I Became A Famous Weblogger and Achieved Rock Star Status as a Lawyer”: There are days such as today when Evan Schaeffer would “even settle for a link from Howard Bashman.” Consider it done.
