En banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit just says no to hospital worker’s “Union Yes” button: Those interested in the so-called Pickering balancing test will undoubtedly find today’s ruling to be of interest. The en banc ruling, by a vote of 13-4, replaces a divided three-judge panel ruling that had reached a contrary result.
This case involves a hospital worker’s First Amendment challenge to the anti-adornment provision of his employer’s dress code policy, which precludes the worker from wearing a “Union Yes” button or other items of flair.
“Tom Goldstein on Life and the New Supreme Court”: This article appears in the current issue of The Harvard Law Record.
Ninth Circuit enjoins enforcement of Arizona’s Proposition 200 voter ID and voter registration proof of citizenship requirements: I have posted at this link a copy of today’s Ninth Circuit order.
The Arizona Republic’s web site provides background on the proposition.
“Government Petitions for Rehearing En Banc in Murphy“: “TaxProf Blog” provides a post that begins, “The Government today petitioned for rehearing en banc in Murphy v. United States, No. 03cv02414 (D.C. Cir. 8/22/06), which held that § 104(a)(2) is unconstitutional under the 16th Amendment as applied to a recovery for a non-physical personal injury unrelated to lost wages or earnings. ”
“Appeals court upholds same-sex marriage ban”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle provides this news update.
You can access today’s ruling of California’s Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District, Division Three, by clicking here.
Update: The Recorder provides a news update headlined “Court Rules Against Same-Sex Marriage” (free access).
California intermediate appellate court orders the disqualification of a deputy district attorney, finding that she “has a disabling conflict of interest in the instant case, where petitioner is being prosecuted for raping an intoxicated person while the prosecutor is promoting her novel involving the identical charge”: You can access today’s ruling of the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District, Division Six, at this link. The author’s/prosecutor’s web site can be accessed here.
“For God’s Sake: How the courts have forsaken both God and the Constitution.” Avi Schick and Shaifali Puri have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor to sit by designation with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit next Wednesday morning: You can access at this link the notice that the Second Circuit issued today. A list of the cases that will be before Justice O’Connor’s three-judge panel can be accessed here.
“New lawsuits challenge Congress’s detainee act; Even before Bush has signed the legislation, defense lawyers are suing over its constitutionality”: Warren Richey will have this article Friday in The Christian Science Monitor.
Who says high-priced lawyers aren’t worth it? According to this article published today in The St. Petersburg Times, a man who was disappointed with the quantity of the seafood in his restaurant entree departed from the restaurant without paying the $46 bill for the meal he and his girlfriend had received. When faced with criminal charges, the man hired a $500-per-hour lawyer, and yesterday the jury found the man not guilty.
“Bias in Camouflage: The University has failed act on its opposition to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.'” The Harvard Crimson today contains an editorial that begins, “Military recruiters returned to Harvard’s campus last week, enabled by a March Supreme Court decision that upheld the Solomon Amendment and forced universities to choose between granting military recruiters access or forfeiting hundreds of millions of dollars of federal research funds.”
“Judge Orders Barry Bonds’ Trainer Freed”: The Associated Press provides this updated report.
Copycat: Bloomberg News reports that “Sun Chief Schwartz Wants to Announce News on His Blog” (via WSJ.com’s “Law Blog“).
“Appellate ruling may allow Bonds’ trainer to be released”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.
Vin Scully is cool: Not appellate but nevertheless true, for many reasons including those that The New York Times notes in this article published today. Scully is one of the few broadcasters who would make the MLB.com Gameday Audio package worth having even if you weren’t a baseball fanatic.
“Eavesdropping will continue during appeal; Ruling against spying is on hold”: The Detroit Free Press contains this article today.
The Detroit News reports today that “Appeals court lets wiretapping continue.”
And The Washington Times reports that “Wiretap program allowed during appeal.”
My earlier coverage appears at this link.
“Legal Case Against Foley Could Be Tricky to Build; It’s unclear if the former congressman will face charges; Different state laws on the Internet and the age of consent complicate matters”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
“In 30-Year-Old Terror Case, a Test for the U.S.; Decision Due on Cuban Exile Suspected in Airliner Blast”: The Washington Post contains this article today.
“MedImmune Asks For Right to Sue; Supreme Court Considers Patent Case”: Charles Lane has this article today in The Washington Post.
“Bush signings called effort to expand power; Report sees broad strategy”: Charlie Savage has this article today in The Boston Globe.
The Congressional Research Service report that is the subject of this article is titled “Presidential Signing Statements: Constitutional and Institutional Implications.”
“Court fights hurt children: Despite recent rulings, fit parents should control who visits their kids.” Today’s edition of USA Today contains an editorial that begins, “Judges have been settling family disputes since King Solomon’s proposed ‘solution’ of splitting a baby in half in a custody battle. That Bible story has some parallels to how courts today grapple with demands of grandparents to visit their grandchildren over parental objections.” The editorial urges that “unless a parent is found to be unfit or irrational, he or she should make the choice, simply because he or she bears primary responsibility for raising a child.”
In response, attorney Traci Truly has an op-ed entitled “Grandparents enrich kids: Courts should weigh value of that relationship against parents’ rights.”
“Waterboarding Historically Controversial; In 1947, the U.S. Called It a War Crime; in 1968, It Reportedly Caused an Investigation”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.
“Judges Zero In on Treatment of a Detainee”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “In sharp questioning, a three-judge panel yesterday challenged arguments by federal officials seeking dismissal of a Pakistani man’s suit charging that because of his religion, race or national origin, he, like others, was held for months after 9/11 in abusive solitary confinement before being cleared of links to terrorism and deported.”
Reuters reports that “Former 9/11 detainee accuses U.S. of abuse.”
The Associated Press reports that “NY judge suggests Ashcroft, Mueller may remain in lawsuit.”
And The New York Law Journal reports that “U.S. Seeks Immunity In 9/11 Detention Case; Panel Considers Liability Of Government Officials” (free access).
