“Boise to put Ten Commandments to vote; City staff is working to get initiative on Nov. 7 ballot so voters can decide whether to have monument in park”: Today’s edition of The Idaho Statesman contains an article that begins, “The city of Boise is working to let voters decide Nov. 7 on whether Julia Davis Park should again be the site of a monument to the Ten Commandments. The Idaho Supreme Court ruled Monday that the city of Boise was wrong to deny a 2004 petition to ask voters whether they want a Ten Commandments monument at the park. The court overturned a district court decision that had sided with the city in not allowing the petition.”
You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Idaho at this link, while a summary of the ruling that the court prepared for the convenience of the media is here.
“Unusual Cert Petition Deals With Certified Queries, Theories and ‘Erie'”: law.com’s Shannon P. Duffy provides this report.
Update: Lyle Denniston of “SCOTUSblog” emails to note that the case has been docketed in the U.S. Supreme Court at No. 06-186.
“Ruling lets lawyers move on effort to clear Lay”: The Houston Chronicle provides this news update.
“Reporters Must Testify Over Bonds Leak”: David Kravets of The Associated Press provides this report.
“Judge: Chronicle reporters must testify.” Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle provides a news update that begins, “A federal judge ruled today that two Chronicle reporters must disclose their sources of grand jury testimony by Barry Bonds and other prominent athletes about steroid use.”
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California at this link.
“This appeal raises questions about the constitutionality of a monument, dedicated to a local citizen, located on the grounds of the Harris County Civil Courthouse. The rub is that the monument contains an open Bible.” So begins an opinion that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued today. At issue in the case is a monument to William S. Mosher, “a prominent Houston businessman and philanthropist who had been a long-time, active supporter of Star of Hope before his death in 1948.”
The majority opinion contains the following description of the monument: “The top part of the monument is a glass-topped display case that is sloped towards the Courthouse entrance. Star of Hope placed an open Bible in the glass display case to memorialize Mosher’s Christian faith, although the monument contains no written explanation for the presence of the Bible. The sloping top of the monument has the appearance of a lectern. The display case does not contain any other items.” You can view an image of the monument by clicking here.
Today’s majority opinion affirms a federal district court’s ruling that ordered removal of the Bible from the monument. The majority opinion’s final paragraph begins: “Because the objective observer would conclude that the current purpose of the monument has evolved into, and presently constitutes, a religious symbol, the Mosher monument containing a Bible violates the Establishment Clause.” Circuit Judge E. Grady Jolly wrote the majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham joined.
Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith dissented in an opinion that begins, “The panel majority exhibits an appalling hostility to any hint of religion in public spaces. Moreover, it does so by means of a misguided attempt to apply the Supreme Court’s recent opinions in McCreary and Van Orden.”
This case has already received extensive press coverage. The San Antonio Express-News has published articles headlined “Battle of the Bible gets ugly” and “Judges weighing Houston display.”
The Associated Press has provided reports headlined “Texas woman wants Bible out of courthouse monument” and “Remove Bible from courthouse display, judge says.”
And Click2Houston.com has provided reports headlined “3-Judge Panel: Bible Stays Put Despite Ruling; Stay Remains In Effect Until All Appeals Are Exhausted“; “Clergy Support County’s Plan To Appeal Bible Ruling; Judge Rules Monument On County Property Unconstitutional“; “Bible Display Supporters To Appeal Judge’s Ruling; Monument Honors Mosher For Contributions To Homeless Programs“: “Judge: Courthouse Bible Display Unconstitutional“; “Bible Supporters Gather For Lunch-Hour Protest; People Assemble Outside Civil Courthouse Near Monument“; and “Lawsuit Wants Bible Removed From Monument; Judge Says Bible In Monument Is Tribute To Devoutly Religious Industrialist.”
“Topless Bar Topples Lewdness Law”: Shannon P. Duffy of The Legal Intelligencer provides this news update (free access). My earlier coverage is here.
“None of our sister circuits has addressed in a published decision whether 42 U.S.C. §1981 applies extraterritorially, but those district courts that have considered the question have unanimously agreed that the statute does not apply outside the United States.” And today a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit joins with those other courts in holding that Section 1981, which prohibits racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of private contracts, does not apply extraterritorially. You can access today’s ruling at this link.
“Jurisprudence: Teen Terror Charges.” This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Dahlia Lithwick appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day.”
When it comes to adult entertainment, semi-nude doesn’t necessarily equal lewd: A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit today issued an opinion declaring facially invalid a Pennsylvania Liquor Code statute and regulation that prohibit “lewd” entertainment at any licensed establishment. Today’s decision explains, “We conclude that the statute and regulation are facially invalid because they are substantially overbroad, punishing a significant amount of protected speech in relation to their legitimate scope.”
Today’s ruling is the second nude dancing / lewd dancing opinion that Circuit Judge Julio M. Fuentes has issued in the past month. Last month’s opinion rejected a constitutional challenge to a New Jersey regulation prohibiting “any lewdness or immoral activity” on liquor-licensed premises. My coverage of that ruling appeared here.
“4 years and 3500 entries ago”: Kevin Heller’s “Tech Law Advisor” blog came into existence four years ago today.
“Blumenthal Says Judicial Review Council Documents Are Public”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Investigative records such as those used to charge former state Chief Justice William Sullivan with violating state law and the judicial code of conduct should be made public, Connecticut’s attorney general said Tuesday.”
“The majority opinion in this case represents the latest step in an ongoing push within this Circuit to subvert United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and to make the sentencing Guidelines de facto mandatory.” So begins Circuit Judge Eric L. Clay‘s opinion dissenting from today’s ruling of the majority on a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The New York Times is reporting: In today’s newspaper, Neil A. Lewis has an article headlined “5 Men Leave Guantanamo for a Bleak, Uncertain Future.”
And the newspaper also contains articles headlined “In Wake of Plot, Justice Dept. Will Study Britain’s Terror Laws“; “Military’s Discharges for Being Gay Rose in ’05“; and “U.S. Wants Ex-Enron Chief to Pay Lay’s Share, Too.”
“Texas senators’ roles defy junior, senior ranks; Hutchison takes the lead on state projects, while Cornyn’s focus is on national policy”: The Houston Chronicle contains this article today.
“Superman tops Supremes”: This article appears today in The Washington Times.
“Espionage Lite: Talking about secrets becomes a crime.” The Washington Post contains this editorial today.
“Bush Signs Law to Save War Memorial Cross”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
The San Diego Union-Tribune reports today that “Feds now control Mount Soledad cross site; Bush signs bill; biggest foe expects court ruling soon.”
The Los Angeles Times reports that “President Signs Bill to Save San Diego Cross; The legislation labels the icon on public land a federal war memorial, an effort to make it harder for foes to force its removal.”
And The Washington Times reports that “Bush saves cross by eminent domain.”
“Has Bush v. Gore Become the Case That Must Not Be Named?” Adam Cohen has this Editorial Observer essay today in The New York Times.
“Help Wanted: Qualified Judges; The Bush administration should withdraw the latest judicial nominee and four others that are in limbo.” This editorial appears today in The New York Times.
“The Suit Challenging the NSA’s Warrantless Wiretapping Can Proceed, Despite the State Secrets Privilege: Why The Judge Made the Right Call.” Julie Hilden has this essay today online at FindLaw.
