“Administration Prods Congress to Curb the Rights of Detainees”: Thursday’s edition of The New York Times will contain this article. Today’s newspaper, meanwhile, contained an article headlined “White House Says Terror Detainees Hold Basic Rights” and a news analysis headlined “Terror and Power: Bush Takes a Step Back.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “The Rule of Law: Recognizing the Power of the Courts, Finally.”
The Washington Post on Thursday will contain an article headlined “Battle Looms In Congress Over Military Tribunals.” Today’s newspaper, meanwhile, reported that “U.S. Shifts Policy on Geneva Conventions; Bowing to Justices, Administration Says It Will Apply Treaties to Terror Suspects.” And Dana Milbank’s “Washington Sketch” column was headlined “It’s Bush’s Way or the Highway on Guantanamo Bay.”
The Los Angeles Times provides a news update headlined “Military Justice Idea Rejected for Alleged Terror Defendants.” And today’s newspaper reports that “Administration Says It’s Meeting Geneva Convention Standard; Though acknowledging convention protections apply to detainees, Bush hits resistance in Congress by declaring treatment won’t change.”
McClatchy Newspapers report that “Bush administration insists Congress ratify military tribunals.”
The Chicago Tribune today contains articles headlined “U.S. relents on Gitmo detainees; Geneva Conventions will apply to inmates” and “Time to close Guantanamo jail, Durbin says.”
The Miami Herald today contains an article headlined “U.S.: Geneva rules apply to Guantanamo detainees; As hearings addressed new rules for military tribunals, the Bush administration reversed policy to include Geneva Convention protections for detainees.”
Today in The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein reports that “Resistance Arises to Bush’s Plan For Trying the Qaeda Prisoners.”
The Boston Globe reports today that “Bush urges Congress to ratify military tribunals; Judiciary panel vows policy review.”
USA Today contains an article headlined “Geneva Conventions cover Gitmo detainees; President asks Congress to help set up tribunal system.”
The Washington Times contains an article headlined “Geneva cover for Gitmo detainees.”
And The Hill on Thursday will report that “Congress takes a go-slow approach to detainee trials.”
“Congress Isn’t a Criminal Hide-Out: A judge’s ruling means legislators, like ordinary citizens, have to comply with lawful searches.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
And The New York Times today contains an editorial entitled “The Rule of Law: Limits of Congressional Rights.”
“Trials and Tribulations: What to Expect While Taking the Bar Exam.” Jeremy Blachman, whose novel “Anonymous Lawyer” will arrive in bookstores on July 25th, now has this essay (pass-through link) at The Wall Street Journal Online.
“Court Has No Place in Dispute Between Rabbis, Ruling Says”: Jennifer 8. Lee has this article today in The New York Times. The blog “Religion Clause” provides links to the rulings in a post you can access here.
“Apple abandons effort to unmask leaker”: Declan McCullagh of c|net News.com provides this report.
“Drop Special Plate Program”: The Hartford Courant today contains an editorial that begins, “Surprise, surprise. Officials at the state Department of Motor Vehicles have reinstated the special ‘Choose Life’ license plates sponsored by The Children First Foundation, a pro-adoption, anti-abortion group based in New York.”
Now she’s neither a good witch nor a bad witch: The Washington Post reports today that “After Toil and Trouble, ‘Witch’ Is Cleared; Va. Resident’s Quest Leads to Pardon for Woman Convicted in 1706.”
The Virginian-Pilot reported yesterday that “‘Witch of Pungo’ pardoned by governor after 300 years.”
And yesterday’s edition of The Richmond Times-Dispatch contained an article headlined “Ding dong, the stigma’s gone; Kaine clears name of Va. woman convicted of witchcraft 300 years ago.”
“At U.S. Urging, Court Throws Lamberth Off Indian Case”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.
The New York Times reports today that “Appeals Panel Removes Judge Presiding Over Indian Lawsuit.”
And in The Los Angeles Times, Henry Weinstein reports that “Appeals Court Removes Judge from Indian Trust Fund Case; The government is also reprimanded for what justices call ‘deplorable’ money mismanagement.”
“EEOC Moves to Compel Testimony on Changing Sidley Partners’ Status”: law.com provides this report.
“Va. Death Row Inmate Chooses Electrocution”: The Associated Press provides this report.
“Berkeley Sea Scouts Ask Nation’s Highest Court to Review California S.C. Ruling on Free Berthing”: Today’s issue of Metropolitan News-Enterprise contains this article.
“Justice laments sentencing rules; Anthony M. Kennedy addresses fellow judges at a 9th Circuit conference”: This article appeared yesterday in The Orange County Register.
Why split the Ninth Circuit? At the risk of seeming to dwell too intently on this issue (which after all is the topic of my law.com essay this week), I’ve posted at this link (large PDF file) an updated appendix of statistics and other circuit split-related information that Ninth Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain has assembled. The information is updated as of July 1, 2006.
Update: To appreciate the anti-split side of the argument, be sure to visit this impressive collection of links at Earthjustice’s website.
Felons are prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition, but apparently antique firearms are exempted from the prohibition: Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision addressing whether a felon is in violation of federal law if the antique firearm the felon is in lawful possession of happens to contain ammunition.
“Hate and Marriage: Same-sex marriage setbacks may not be all bad news for gay rights.” Law Professor Richard Thompson Ford has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
What is “direct” evidence, and is it really any different from “circumstantial” evidence? Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner issued this interesting opinion today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of that court.
“The question here is whether the rule of necessity applies when a plaintiff, like Ignacio, has sued all the members of the Ninth Circuit, thereby making it impossible for the circuit to convene a three-member panel consisting of Ninth Circuit judges that are not a party to this suit.” In an opinion issued today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit “hold[s] that the rule of necessity applies when, like here, a litigant indiscriminately sues all the judges of the Ninth Circuit.” And, as a result, three Ninth Circuit judges were permitted to hear and decide the appeal despite having been identified as defendants in the lawsuit under review.
Fourth Circuit nominee Terrence W. Boyle responds by letter to an inquiry from Senate Majority Leader William H. Frist, M.D. (R-TN) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA): I have posted a copy of Judge Boyle’s letter at this link.
Update: The Associated Press reports that “Judicial Nominee Acknowledges Oversight.”
Ninth Circuit announces its ruling in Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy: In this instance, Caddy is not some guy who wants to help by carrying your golf clubs and offering advice on how to play the course. Rather, he’s a resident of the United Kingdom who operates a three-room bed and breakfast located on a cliff overlooking the pebbly beaches of England’s south shore.
According to today’s opinion, “The name of Caddy’s operation is ‘Pebble Beach,’ which, given its location, is no surprise. Caddy advertises his services, which do not include a golf course, at his website, www.pebblebeach-uk.com.” Today’s decision holds that a California-based federal district court correctly held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Caddy and therefore properly dismissed Pebble Beach’s lawsuit under the Lanham Act and the California Business and Professions Code for intentional infringement and dilution of its “Pebble Beach” mark. The plaintiff’s web site advertising its world-famous California golf course, and more, can be accessed here.
“Government Wins Appeal in Coltec Tax Shelter Case”: The “TaxProf Blog” offers this post about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued today. To quote one “How Appealing” reader who has emailed about the ruling, the decision is “interesting because it tackles an issue of purposive (v. literal) construction of the tax statute.”
“Report Card from the U.S. Supreme Court: How the Third Circuit Fared in the October 2005 Term.” This month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column, published Monday in The Legal Intelligencer, can now be freely accessed online at this link.
On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “Detainee Questions Trip Federal Court Nominee” (featuring Nina Totenberg) and “Former Military Lawyer Judges Geneva Memo.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.
“Senate Judiciary Cmte. Hearing on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld”: Via C-SPAN, you can access archived video of yesterday’s hearing by clicking here (RealPlayer required).
And at the “Georgetown Law Faculty Blog,” Marty Lederman has an interesting post titled “Top Ten Myths About Hamdan, Geneva, and Interrogations.”
Making a federal case of it: The Louisville Courier-Journal yesterday published an article headlined “Blogger sues Fletcher over Web policy; Mark Nickolas’ internet site blocked on state workers’ computers.” The newspaper has posted at this link a copy of the complaint initiating that lawsuit in federal district court.
The state of the Federal Circuit: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has posted online the text of remarks that Chief Judge Paul R. Michel delivered recently at the Federal Circuit Bar Association Annual Conference.
The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Skakel to Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court“; “Inmates Sue to Overturn Nude Magazine Ban“; “Republicans Want Court to Hear DeLay Case“; “Mass. to Weigh Challenge to Gay Marriage“; and “Authors Who Lost ‘Da Vinci’ Case to Appeal.”
“Hearing stormy for judicial nominee; A GOP senator is skeptical of Haynes’ explanation of his role in interrogation policies”: This article appears today in The Richmond Times-Dispatch.
Today in The Washington Post, Charles Lane reports that “GOP Senator Criticizes Appeals Court Nominee.”
The New York Times reports that “Bush Nominee Tries to Calm Torture Furor.” In addition, columnist Maureen Dowd has an op-ed entitled “He Let the Dogs Out!” (TimesSelect subscription required).
And The Washington Times reports that “Democrats likely to filibuster nominee.”
