“Justices asked to hear failure-to-appear case”: The Stamford Advocate contains this article today.

“With a Game at Dartmouth, Fighting Sioux Stir Debate”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

And The Boston Globe reports today that “Criticism of team’s name heats up Dartmouth game; Sioux imagery is ‘offensive,’ says AD.”

“‘Chronicle’ Reporters Face Jail Over Steroids Leak”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition.”

“Baseball players to fight court ruling”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “A federal appeals court ruling allowing prosecutors to seize and use confidential drug-testing records of baseball players threatens the right to privacy and will be challenged, the head of the Major League Baseball Players Association said Thursday.”

Gross disobedience of employer’s safety instructions leads Supreme Court of Ohio to uphold denial of workers’ compensation benefits to KFC employee injured in workplace mishap: The New York Times reports today that “Ohio Ruling Denying Pay in Job Injury Draws Debate.”

The Columbus Dispatch reported yesterday that “Negligent may lose, judges rule.”

The Toledo Blade reported yesterday that “Court rules against injured worker; Employee fired for causing own injury can be denied benefits, justices say.”

And The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported yesterday that “Denial of on-job injury pay upheld; Stubborn teen gave up rights, top court rules.”

You can access Wednesday’s ruling of Ohio’s highest court at this link.

All of the above: Question one in columnist William Safire’s “The Office Pool, 2007” asks:

1. The “O’Connorless Supreme Court” will decide

(a) without reversing Roe v. Wade to uphold laws restricting late-term abortion because they do not impose an “undue burden” on women

(b) that public schools in Seattle and Louisville, in their zeal to prevent re-segregation, have gone too far in using race in selection of students

(c) to reject Massachusetts’ case to force the Environmental Protection Agency to raise auto emissions standards, holding that “global warming” gives the state no standing to sue without new law

And Safire’s own quite plausible prediction in response to this question is “All.”

“McCain-Feingold in the Dock: Where do Alito and Roberts stand on free political speech?” This editorial (free access) appears today in The Wall Street Journal.

“Appellate Justices Hopping Mad Over Superior Court Judge’s ‘Kangaroo Court’ Reference”: law.com provides this report, in which the trial judge who made reference to “the kangaroos up there in kangaroo court” explains that he wasn’t referring to the California Court of Appeal. Indeed, according to the trial judge, he wasn’t even referring to a court at all, but rather to the district attorney’s office’s “strike team.” The article closes: “‘They wasted a lot of pages,’ [the trial judge] said. ‘If they wanted to know what I meant, they should’ve asked me.'”

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“Court Reprimands Ohio Governor Over Gifts”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

The Columbus Dispatch reports today that “Court scolds Taft on ethics; Justices hand governor formal public reprimand.”

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that “Ohio justices slap Taft over gifts; Failure to report nets reprimand.”

And The Toledo Blade reports that “Taft given law-license reprimand; justices OK ethics sanction over failure to report gifts.”

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

Chief Judge Easterbrook versus Circuit Judge Posner, once again: For the second time in the past eight days, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has issued a ruling in which the Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook wrote the majority opinion from which Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner dissented.

In today’s decision, a pro se prisoner whose claim of sexual abuse at the hands of a prison guard survived summary judgment but then was rejected by a jury at trial argues on appeal that the federal district judge abused his discretion in denying the prisoner’s request for the recruitment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 1915(e)(1). The majority holds that the trial court’s decision did not constitute an abuse of discretion and that a trial court’s plausible decision whether to recruit counsel for a pro se litigant would never be subject to reversal. Judge Posner dissents, holding that while many pro se litigants are quite capable of representing themselves at trial, it should have been obvious to the trial judge that this pro se prisoner was unlikely to be one such minimally competent pro se litigant at trial.

Unlike in connection with last week’s case, when I concluded that Judge Posner’s dissent offered a much more convincing argument than Chief Judge Easterbrook’s majority opinion, today’s ruling presents a much closer call. It’s easy to feel sympathetic toward the prisoner, who plainly was unable to equal counsel for the defendants in the quality of his presentation. But, at the same time, the majority opinion makes a very strong case for why a trial judge’s reasoned exercise of discretion in advance of trial concerning whether to recruit counsel should not be second-guessed with the benefit of hindsight.

“MLB Players Union Vows to Fight Ruling”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Major League Baseball’s players’ association will fight a federal appeals court’s decision to give prosecutors access to the names and urine samples of about 100 players who tested positive for steroids in 2003.”

My earlier coverage appears here and here.

“Appeals court rejects rabbi’s claim that murder trial was unfair”: The Associated Press provides this article reporting that the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey today issued a 66-page unpublished opinion affirming the murder conviction of Rabbi Fred Neulander.

Not an auspicious day to be a rescuer on the Pennsylvania Turnpike: Demonstrating the accuracy of the saying “No good deed goes unpunished,” today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a decision that involves some rather unfortunate facts. On the evening of May 12, 2002 in a heavy rain, a man traveling on the Pennsylvania Turnpike with his wife and children noticed that another car had just overturned off the right side of the highway. The man and his wife were both trained and certified in first aid by the Red Cross, so they pulled their car to the shoulder of the highway and went to assist the occupants of the overturned vehicle. Fortunately, both passengers in the overturned vehicle appeared unharmed and were able to remove themselves from their vehicle.

The male rescuer stood outside his vehicle while awaiting the arrival of the police. Before the police arrived, a third vehicle lost control, swerved, and hydroplaned into the rescuers’ parked vehicle, killing the male rescuer. Thereafter, his widow sued the passengers of the overturned vehicle, alleging that their negligence in causing the first accident, which prompted the rescuers to respond, placed the male rescuer in the way of harm that ultimately led to his death.

Although the story is quite tragic, the rescuer’s widow received somewhat happy news today, in that a unanimous Third Circuit panel has reversed the grant of summary judgment that had dismissed the widow’s lawsuit against the passengers of the overturned vehicle. You can access today’s ruling at this link.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is seeking a new Clerk of Court: You can access the job posting announcement at this link.

“Ford and the Court”: Jess Bravin has this post at WSJ.com’s “Washington Wire” blog.

“Uncertainty on Texas death penalty cases”: Lyle Denniston has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.” My related earlier post can be accessed here.

In news updates freely available online from The Legal Intelligencer: An update reports that “Fetal Homicide Statute Ruled Constitutional.” Yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania consists of both a majority opinion and a concurring opinion.

And a second update reports that “Hershey Alumni Assoc. Has No Standing to Sue School.” Yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania can be accessed at this link.

“Dems Likely to Resurrect Detainee Issue”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Senate Democrats plan to use their newfound power to revisit one of the most contentious national security matters of 2006: Deciding what legal rights must be protected for detainees held in the war on terrorism.”

Programming note: My final appellate brief of 2006 is due to be filed today. As a result, I’ll be away from the internet this afternoon while visiting with co-counsel to finalize the document. Additional posts will appear here this evening.

“Ruling Erases Players’ Victories in a Steroids Case”: Murray Chass has this “On Baseball” column today in The New York Times.

Today in The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein reports that “Baseball Players’ Failed Steroid Tests May Be Examined.”

In The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “100 big-leaguers steroid-positive in 2003 season; Court rules federal prosecutors can use tests for investigation.”

And The Washington Post contains an article headlined “Court: Investigators Can Keep Positive Test Results.”

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“Testimony on tumor to be heard in drug case retrial”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “A federal appeals court overturned an East Bay man’s drug-dealing conviction Wednesday, saying jurors should have been allowed to hear from medical witnesses who were prepared to testify that a large brain tumor made the defendant vulnerable to suggestion and entrapment by government informants.”

And Josh Richman of The Oakland Tribune reports today that “Hayward man to receive new trial; Brain tumor damaged judgment, making convicted meth dealer susceptible to suggestion.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“Ford’s 1975 pick still a key player on high court; Justice John Paul Stevens has emerged as the leader of the liberal bloc”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Vote on gay marriage is due but can’t be forced, SJC says; Next step is up to Legislature”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.

The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Gay marriage vote unlikely; Massachusetts high court says, unhappily, that it can’t force lawmakers to address a bid to repeal the law.”

And The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts reports that “Court dismisses Romney suit.”

My earlier coverage can be accessed here.

“U.S. arrest of brutal island employer legal: court.” Reuters provides a report that begins, “U.S. officials acted correctly in arresting a brutal garment factory owner in the remote South Pacific island of American Samoa and sending him 2,300 miles to Hawaii to face trial, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday.”

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“Ford’s Supreme Court Legacy: Justice John Paul Stevens Remains One of Ford’s Most Enduring Legacies.” Jan Crawford Greenburg of ABC News provides this written report.

“Judge won’t revive charges against abortion doctor; He rules that Kansas’ attorney general lacked authority to push the criminal case forward”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

The Wichita Eagle today contains articles headlined “Judge rejects appeal, Kline names prosecutor; Turf issues over Tiller case collide in district court” and “McKinney a longtime abortion foe.”

The Kansas City Star reports that “Kline tries to keep investigation alive; Charges against abortion doctor are still blocked, but inquiry gets special prosecutor.”

The Topeka Capital-Journal reports that “Kline loses fight to have charges against Tiller reinstated.”

And The Lawrence Journal-World reports that “Abortion charges again rejected; Kline to appoint special prosecutor.”

“He wanted to be judged on Supreme Court nomination”: This article about former President Gerald R. Ford appears today in The Chicago Tribune.

President Ford’s letter from 2005 to the Dean of the Fordham University School of Law honoring Justice John Paul Stevens’ 30 years of service on the Supreme Court of the United States can be viewed at this link, while additional background on the letter can be accessed here.

“The Constitution, Capital Punishment And Clemency Proceedings”: Carl Tobias has this essay online today at FindLaw.

Imagine that — appellate judges don’t take kindly to trial judge’s characterization of appellate court as “kangaroo court”: Coming hard on the heels of my posting this morning of the petition for writ of certiorari in Fieger v. Michigan Grievance Administrator — a case asking whether an attorney has a First Amendment right to publicly express non-defamatory personal criticism of a judge — is this gem of an opinion from California’s Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District.

According to that decision issued today, the trial judge on the record stated to counsel in open court, “You can’t offend the kangaroos up there in kangaroo court.” Although the Court of Appeal could have brushed off the insult by declaring that the trial judge must have been referring to the Supreme Court of California, instead the appellate judges decided that the trial judge must have been referring to their intermediate appellate court.

Additional coverage of the ruling can be found online at “California Appellate Report” and “PrawfsBlawg.”

“Gerald Ford’s impact on the Court”: Lyle Denniston has this commentary online at “SCOTUSblog.”

What’s a federal appellate court to do when the U.S. Supreme Court grants a petition for writ of certiorari in a case in which a timely-filed petition for rehearing en banc remains pending before the federal appellate court? Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an order denying the petition for rehearing en banc filed in Brewer v. Quarterman.

What makes that otherwise mundane action noteworthy is that the U.S. Supreme Court, on October 13, 2006, granted Brewer’s petition for writ of certiorari and agreed to hear and decide that case on the merits. The questions presented can be accessed here, while the Supreme Court’s docket entries can be viewed at this link.

The Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari appears to have led eight of the Fifth Circuit’s fifteen current active judges to abstain from voting on the petition for rehearing en banc. Today’s order, entered by Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith, states that “[t]his order is entered, and the court voted to deny rehearing en banc, solely to resolve any potential question of the judgment’s finality in this court and to clarify the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over the case.”

Circuit Judge James L. Dennis, listed as one of the eight active judges who refrained from voting on the petition for rehearing en banc, issued a five-page dissent “from the attempt to exercise jurisdiction” in which he writes: “In its haste to attempt to ensure that the Supreme Court keeps the case and reaches the merits, however, the minority of this court’s judges attempting to exercise jurisdiction herein have ignored well-established limits on this court’s jurisdiction and, in the process, trespassed upon the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.”

Both the order denying rehearing en banc and Judge Dennis’s dissent from the attempt to exercise jurisdiction mention the en banc Fifth Circuit’s ruling earlier this month in Nelson v. Quarterman, in which the en banc court by a vote of 9-7 overturned a Texas state court death sentence on a finding of a Penry violation. Some of the seven dissenters in Nelson are among the eight who refrained from voting on today’s order denying rehearing en banc, so perhaps today’s order ought not be viewed as a raw power-play by the dissenters in Nelson who may hope their views will receive a more sympathetic audience from the nine Justices upstairs.

It is interesting to note that, according to the U.S. Supreme Court’s docket, Brewer himself on December 14, 2006 filed a motion in the Supreme Court asking that his case be remanded to the Fifth Circuit for reconsideration in light of that federal appellate court’s recent en banc ruling in Nelson. That motion is scheduled to be considered at the Supreme Court’s conference of January 5, 2007, while the case itself is currently scheduled to be argued on the merits in the Supreme Court on January 17th.

“This appeal raises the issue of whether a person arrested in American Samoa for allegedly committing federal crimes in American Samoa may be tried and convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.” So begins an opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

The question arises because, although the U.S. Congress made federal criminal law applicable to American Samoa, Congress did not create federal district courts for that territory. As a result, federal criminal charges must be tried someplace else that has a federal district court, and because Hawaii was the federal judicial district to which the defendant/appellant in today’s case was “first brought,” the Ninth Circuit rejects the defendant’s challenge to his conviction.

“Court: Feds Entitled to MLB Steroid Data.” The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The names and urine samples of about 100 Major League Baseball players who tested positive three years ago can be used by federal investigators, a court ruled Wednesday – a decision that could have implications for Barry Bonds.” You can access today’s lengthy ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

Today’s ruling involves three consolidated appeals from three separate U.S. District Courts within the Ninth Circuit. The caption of the second consolidated appeal states that the case arises on “Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Nevada.” As an eagle-eyed reader of this blog has helpfully observed via email, the entire State of Nevada is served by a single U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

Programming note: My final appellate brief of 2006 is due to be filed tomorrow. As a result, I’ll be away from the internet this afternoon while visiting with co-counsel to finalize the document. Additional posts will appear here this evening.

“Ohio Gov. Taft Reprimanded Over Ethics”: The AP provides a report that begins, “The state Supreme Court on Wednesday publicly reprimanded Ohio Gov. Bob Taft for his ethics violations in office, a black mark that will stay on his permanent record as an attorney.”

And the Office of Public Information of the Supreme Court of Ohio has issued a news release headlined “Governor Taft Reprimanded.” You can access that court’s ruling, issued today, at this link.