“British Couple Wants Gay Marriage Ratified”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Two women asking Britain to recognize their Canadian same-sex marriage told a court Tuesday that calling their relationship a civil partnership violated their human rights.”
The Times of London provides a news update headlined “Lesbians demand UK recognises foreign marriage.”
And BBC News reports that “Lesbian couple fight legal status; A lesbian couple from North Yorkshire who were married in Canada have pleaded with a High Court judge to give their union full legal status in the UK.”
“Ruling lets city regulate guns; State high court in rare deadlock; Denver’s suit claimed that a 2003 state law wrongly pre-empted many of the city’s firearm ordinances”: This article appears today in The Denver Post.
And The Rocky Mountain News reports today that “Denver gun laws stand, but issue left unresolved.”
My earlier coverage appears at this link.
“Abortion ban clears Legislature; Blanco is expected to sign bill into law”: The Times-Picayune of New Orleans today contains an article that begins, “The Senate sent to Gov. Kathleen Blanco on Monday a bill that would ban most abortions in the state but only if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing the procedure.”
Raich plus one: One year ago today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Gonzales v. Raich. And one year ago tomorrow, I posted this extensive collection of news reports about the ruling.
“Connecticut City Takes First Step to Evict in Eminent Domain Case”: The New York Times contains this article today.
And The Day of New London, Connecticut reports today that “City Votes To Proceed With Property Seizures; Another Resident of Fort Trumbull settles; Two Remain.”
“‘Choose Life’ Plates Problematic”: This editorial appears today in The Hartford Courant.
“Junk Bonds: What baseball can teach us about anti-discrimination law.” Law Professor Richard Thompson Ford has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Maybe Not Scalito: An early encouraging sign from Justice Alito.” This editorial appears today in The Washington Post.
And yesterday, that newspaper published an editorial entitled “A Free-Speech Puzzle: The Supreme Court limits the reach of the First Amendment.”
“Analysis: an unanswered, delicate race question.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
“Court to Revisit Race in Schools; Integration plans across the nation could be in the balance as the Supreme Court agrees to hear constitutional challenges in two cities”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times. The newspaper also reports that “Ruling Against Integration Plans Could Add to L.A. Schools’ Burden.”
In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports today that “Justices to look at race-based school policy; Cases focus on public education.”
The Baltimore Sun reports that “Race-school cases get hearing; Supreme Court to consider affirmative action in public education.”
Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Justices take cases on race-based enrollment; But Prop. 209 means California schools likely to be unaffected.”
The Washington Times reports that “Court takes 2 race-based school-assignment cases.”
The Hartford Courant reports that “Court Takes On Race Case; School Desegregation Could Be Affected.”
The Louisville Courier-Journal reports that “Supreme Court to hear Jefferson’s school suit; Parent is fighting the use of race for enrollment.”
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that “Supreme Court to hear Seattle schools race case.”
The Seattle Times reports that “Whatever the ruling, tiebreaker may be moot.”
And The New York Sun contains an editorial entitled “Roberts’s Rules.”
“Supreme Court to hear Washington case”: The Seattle Times today contains an article that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it will consider whether inmates can reopen challenges to prison sentences based on a court ruling two years ago that limited judges’ discretion in sentencing criminal defendants.”
“Conservatives Watching Senate Debate on Gay Marriage”: The New York Times contains this article today.
The Washington Post today contains articles headlined “Debate Begins On Gay Marriage; President Backs Proposal Affirming Traditional Union” and “Now Playing in Senate: A GOP Double Bill.” In addition, columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. has an op-ed entitled “Base Assumptions: Why Should the Faithful Believe Bush Now?”
The Los Angeles Times reports that “Senate Debates Measure to Ban Gay Marriage; The constitutional amendment is seen as a GOP effort to appeal to conservative voters.”
The Boston Globe reports that “President rips SJC on gay marriage; Pushes for ban in nod to social conservatives.”
The Chicago Tribune reports that “Bush backs amendment on marriage; Senate to begin debate on bid to ban same-sex nuptials.”
USA Today reports that “Debate on gay-marriage ban splits Senate, public; Amendment is unlikely to pass, both sides say.”
Knight Ridder Newspapers report that “Bush reiterates support for amendment banning gay marriage.”
The Wall Street Journal reports that “Republicans Reignite Hot-Button Issues; Senate Votes on Gay Marriage, Estate Tax Are Aimed at Rallying Conservative Base” (free access).
The Houston Chronicle reports that “Bush turns up heat to prevent same-sex marriages; He again calls for amendment to ban such unions, but it’s unlikely to pass.”
The Washington Times reports that “Bush pushes Hill on marriage measure.”
The Hill contains articles headlined “Right just doesn’t get Sen. Frist” and “Reid straddles line on marriage amendment.”
And in The Philadelphia Inquirer, political analyst Dick Polman has an article headlined “Gay issue is back, but too late for the right?”
“Mohawk wins RICO case ruling; Workers upset about illegals”: This article appears today in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
“Ruling pulls Herrera from bribe suit”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle. My earlier coverage appears here.
“In for Life? Not Him; Prisons can’t seem to keep Richard McNair confined; After his third escape, the convicted murderer is still at large, leaving tantalizing clues.” This front page article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
“In Wen Ho Lee Case, a Blow To Journalists After the Fact”: Charles Lane has this article today in The Washington Post.
“For Law Firm, Serial Plaintiff Had Golden Touch”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
“Court to Weigh Race as Factor in School Rolls”: Linda Greenhouse will have this article Tuesday in The New York Times.
And Tuesday in The Washington Post, Charles Lane will report that “Justices to Hear Cases of Race-Conscious School Placements.”
“Supreme Court gives US companies armour against racketeering lawsuits”: Patti Waldmeir has this article in Tuesday’s edition of Financial Times.
“Blawg Review #60”: It was scheduled to appear at “The Trademark Blog,” but apparently this rendition was adjudged “not by any measure a Blawg Review,” so the sixtieth installment of Blawg Review instead appears here at “Blawg Review.”
“The Supreme Court Finds No First Amendment Protection for Government Employee Speech Pursuant to Official Duties”: Michael C. Dorf has this essay online today at FindLaw.
“High Court to Tackle Race in Schools; Justices Also Cut Back Reach Of Federal Racketeering Law With RICO-Suit Dismissal”: Jess Bravin and Ben Winograd will have this article (pass-through link) Tuesday in The Wall Street Journal.
“Looking Backward, Looking Forward: The Legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O’Connor.” The April 2006 issue of The Stanford Law Review is now available online. You can access the table of contents here, and the full text of all the tributes and articles can be accessed via this link (scroll down to the bottom of the page).
“High court to hear key school race cases; Ruling could clarify how far states can go to promote diversity”: CNN.com provides this report.
And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “High Court to Review Race in Shaping Schools” (RealPlayer required).
“Court to Hear Challenge to Race-Based School Admissions”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.
And The Louisville Courier-Journal provides a news update headlined “Jefferson schools to defend desegregation policy before U.S. Supreme Court; Case being combined with Seattle tiebreaker plan.”
Warren Richey is reporting: Tuesday in The Christian Science Monitor, he will have articles headlined “High court to examine race-balancing schools; Louisville, Ky., and Seattle districts promote diversity by using race to determine where students attend” and “No relief for reporters seeking to shield sources.”
“Must an entire government law office be disqualified whenever the office head has a conflict because he or she previously represented a client in private practice?” A divided Supreme Court of California today issued an opinion answering this question in the affirmative in a case involving the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office.
“High Court to Hear Public School Affirmative Action Cases”: law.com’s Tony Mauro provides this news update.
“Padilla Lawyer Wants Key Evidence Tossed”: The Associated Press provides this report.
“Alito Opinion Draws Wrath of Scalia”: law.com’s Tony Mauro provides this news update. My earlier coverage appears here.
On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day“: The broadcast contained segments entitled “Slate’s Jurisprudence: Affirmative Action in Schools” (featuring Dahlia Lithwick) and “Comparing Gay Marriage Amendment to the Other 27.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.
“Bush Rallies Gay Marriage Opponents”: The Associated Press provides a report which notes that “Bush criticized judges who have overturned state laws similar in intent to the proposed legislation. ‘Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization, and it should not be redefined by activist judges,’ he said.”
The complete text of President Bush’s remarks from this afternoon can be accessed here.
The Associated Press is reporting: Gina Holland reports that “High Court Refuses Newspaper Press Fight.”
And in other news, “Gay Marriage Ban Short of Votes in Senate.”
“New London preparing for evictions in eminent domain dispute”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “City officials were preparing Monday to begin eviction proceedings against residents who refuse to leave their coastal Connecticut homes, a move that could signal the end is near in an eminent domain dispute that reached the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Another federal appellate court concludes that when considering the time for appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, “less” means “more”: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit at this link.
My criticism of two earlier, similar rulings can be found in my “On Appeal” essay titled “Less Is More: When Courts Decide a Law Means the Opposite of What It Says.” At least six Ninth Circuit judges appear to agree with me for the reasons set forth in this dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc, as I first reported here.
