“Court rules for Texas death row inmates”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.” You can access the opinion in Smith v. Texas, No. 05-11304, here and the oral argument transcript here. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy issued the majority opinion in a case that divided the U.S. Supreme Court 5-4.
The Court today also issued decisions in two other death penalty cases that were orally argued together (access the transcript here): Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, No. 05-11284 (opinion here) and Brewer v. Quarterman, No. 05-11287 (opinion here).
On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “High Court Takes Up Campaign-Ad Issue” (featuring Nina Totenberg) and “High Court Ruling Revives Abortion Debate.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.
“Federal Judge Withdraws Ruling Against Bush Terror Designations”: Today in The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein has an article that begins, “A federal judge has withdrawn a highly publicized ruling she issued last year declaring that President Bush acted unconstitutionally when he designated 27 groups and individuals as terrorists in 2001.”
“Court Knows Best”: Today in The Washington Post, columnist Ruth Marcus has an op-ed that begins, “How nice of Justice Kennedy to look out for me. Goodness knows, if I didn’t have the justice and his buddies hovering, I might make a terrible mistake. I mean, I’m so impulsive and muddle-headed, I sometimes don’t know what’s in my own best interest.”
“Passengers get the 4th Amendment, too; It’s common sense, and safer for the police, for the Supreme Court to grant passengers in cars the same fourth amendment rights as drivers.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
“Democrats want swifter EPA action on emissions standards; Senators criticize the agency’s leader, saying he lacks a sense of urgency in confronting global warming”: The Los Angeles Times today contains an article that begins, “The chief of the Environmental Protection Agency came under fire Tuesday from congressional Democrats, who said he had failed to respond more aggressively to the Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gas emissions could be federally regulated.”
And The Boston Globe today contains an article headlined “Act now on emissions, senators tell EPA head.”
“Mexico City legalizes first-trimester abortions; The bill passes 46 to 19 despite fierce PAN opposition; Backers say thousands of women’s lives may be saved”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
“For Indian Victims of Sexual Assault, a Tangled Legal Path”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “As a Cherokee woman charging rape by a non-Indian, Jami Rozell could not go to the tribal court, which handles only crimes by Indians against Indians in Indian country. So after five months of agonizing, she went to the district attorney in Tahlequah, Okla., and testified at a preliminary hearing.”
“More GOP Senators Critical of Gonzales”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.
And The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Critics doubt official looking into Rove; Advocacy groups cite Bloch’s ties to the administration.”
Perhaps with God’s help, this Express Mail package will reach its destination tomorrow: The Hartford Courant today contains an article headlined “Ruling: No Religious Displays In Post Office; Resident Wins Suit Against Postal Unit.”
The article begins, “A federal judge has ruled that post offices across the country that are run by churches and other organizations cannot promote religion through displays or other promotional materials. In a decision involving a church-run post office in downtown Manchester, the judge sided with a town resident who said his First Amendment rights were violated by the Christian displays.”
You can access last week’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut at this link.
“On Wet Road, ‘Officer Down’; 2006 Work Zone Accident Detailed”: This article appears today in The Hartford Courant, along with a related “911 Transcription.”
According to the article, “U.S. Court of Appeals Judge John Walker, a cousin of President Bush’s, would be cleared of wrongdoing in the collision that took Picagli’s life.”
“Gay-rights proposals gain in Congress; Measures would add protections”: The Boston Globe contains this article today.
“Judges, Congress and the Salary Link”: Today’s installment of Stephen Barr’s “Federal Diary” column begins, “For the past 20 years, members of Congress have linked their salaries to those of federal judges as a strategy to avoid the wrath of voters who think lawmakers are overpaid and do not deserve an annual raise.”
“Justices Weigh Legislators’ Right to Fire”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post.
And The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports today that “High court to decide whether Dayton’s dismissal of aide was ‘legislative act’; The aide alleges his firing was discrimination and wants the case tried; The former senator says the Constitution protects members of Congress from lawsuits.”
“Appeals Court Allows Net Phone Company to Continue Signing Up New Customers”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
The Washington Post reports today that “Vonage Wins Stay in Verizon Dispute.”
The Los Angeles Times reports that “Vonage wins stay of patent ruling.”
And c|net News.com reports that “Vonage can keep signing up new customers.”
“In Seeking Taxes, New York Challenges India and Mongolia in U.S. Supreme Court”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.
And today in The New York Sun, Joseph Goldstein reports that “Diplomats May Be Made To Honor Parking Tickets.”
“Colo. abortion rights got start 40 years ago today”: This article appears today in The Denver Post.
“High court to revisit part of law that limits campaign ads; Provision before justices today bans certain ads by corporations, unions”: Joan Biskupic has this article today in USA Today.
Today in The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “Court Weighs Campaign Ads; Curbs on Firms, Unions In Run-Up to Elections May Ride on Alito Vote” (free access).
In The Washington Post, Robert Barnes and Matthew Mosk report that “Justices to Consider Finance Law Limits; Campaign Issue Hits Court for 3rd Time.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Judging Campaign Ads: A different Supreme Court revisits the McCain-Feingold law on election financing.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Campaign funding rule before Supreme Court; A McCain-Feingold ban on corporate and union-sponsored ads before elections could be overturned or weakened.”
The Associated Press reports that “Federal Election Law Faces Challenge.”
The New York Times contains an editorial entitled “A Test for the Roberts Court.”
In The Washington Times, Bradley A. Smith and Stephen M. Hoersting have an op-ed entitled “McCain-Feingold and free speech.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston previews the oral argument in a post titled “Election season begins: Argument 4/25/07.”
The Houston Chronicle is reporting: Today’s newspaper reports that “Bible battle ruled moot; Panel rejects the county’s request to vacate trial verdict that courthouse display was illegal.” My earlier coverage of yesterday’s en banc Fifth Circuit ruling appears at this link.
In other news, “A&M officials retain immunity from Bonfire lawsuits.” My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Fifth Circuit ruling appears at this link.
And an article reports that “Human smuggler could return to prison; 5th Circuit says judge misapplied sentencing rules in truck deaths case.” You can access last week’s Fifth Circuit ruling at this link.
Available online from law.com: An article reports that “2nd Circuit Clarifies Rule for Calculating Fees; Client’s willingness to pay is focus.” You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.
And in other news, “Paintball-Shooting Toll Collector Can Go Back to Work, Court Says.” You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of New Jersey at this link.
“Appeals court says fight over Bible in courthouse display moot”: The Associated Press provides this report.
My earlier coverage of today’s en banc Fifth Circuit ruling appears at this link.
“Mexico City Legalizes Abortion Early in Term”: This article will appear Wednesday in The New York Times.
And The Washington Post on Wednesday will report that “Mexico City’s Legislature Votes to Legalize Abortion.”
“These consolidated appeals arise out of the violent collapse of the Texas A&M University bonfire stack on November 18, 1999, which killed 12 students and injured 27 others.” So begins an opinion that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued today.
And the opinion ends, “For these reasons, we conclude that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from suit based on plaintiffs’ section 1983 claims, and we therefore AFFIRM the summary judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiffs’ complaints.”
“Case of Ex-Senator Argued in High Court”: The Associated Press provides this report.
“North Dakota passes conditional abortion ban”: This article appears today in The Bismarck Tribune.
And The Grand Forks Herald reports today that “N.D. Legislature outlaws abortion in N.D. with ‘trigger’ bill.”
“Mexico City lawmakers vote to legalize abortion; Enactment of the bill is expected, as Mexico City mayor Marcelo Ebrard has promised to sign it into law”: The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.
The Associated Press reports that “Mexico City Lawmakers Pass Abortion Bill.”
And Reuters reports that “Mexico City legalizes abortion, defies Church.”
In Wednesday’s edition of The Christian Science Monitor: Warren Richey will report that “US Supreme Court reviews limits on political ads; Campaign-finance and free-speech issues are involved, and the case could reveal dynamics at the high court.”
And Gail Russell Chaddock will have an article headlined “Bush, Congress reach for war’s reins; The showdown this week between President Bush and Congress on war funding is a constitutional issue over who controls the military.”
“Analysis: Limits on Bush’s Loyalty?” The AP provides a news analysis that begins, “Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has fewer and fewer supporters in Washington, but he’s got the one who counts. The question is: Why does President Bush back him so strongly when so many other Republicans think Gonzales should quit?”
“Preliminary Analysis of Oral Argument in Beck ERISA Fiduciary Case”: Paul M. Secunda has this post at “Workplace Prof Blog.”
“Supreme Court Debates Tax Case of International Proportions”: law.com’s Tony Mauro provides this news update.
The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “EPA Won’t Specify Global Warming Plans“; “Mexico City Expected to Allow Abortions“; and “Challenger of Lethal Injection Executed.”
“Senate workers’ rights: skepticism abounds.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
Update: You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Office of Sen. Mark Dayton v. Hanson, No. 06-618.
Access online today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument transcripts: The transcript in Permanent Mission of India to United Nations v. City of New York, No. 06-1634, can be accessed here.
And the transcript in Beck v. PACE Int’l Union, No. 05-1448, can be accessed here.
Establishment Clause challenge to Bible monument located on the grounds of the Harris County Civil Courthouse is moot, en banc Fifth Circuit rules: You can access today’s en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link. Three judges dissent from the en banc court’s mootness holding, while two judges dissent from the en banc court’s refusal to vacate the federal district court’s judgment.
According to that second dissent, “Properly framed, the question is whether vacatur is appropriate when voluntary action taken by an appellant moots a case, but the action taken is completely unrelated to the litigation. The question should be answered in the affirmative. Admittedly, the few vacatur rules given to us by the Supreme Court do not directly answer the question, and our Court has not yet squarely addressed it. However, every other circuit court to address the issue has determined that vacatur is appropriate under such circumstances.”
I wrote about this case in the September 5, 2006 installment of my weekly “On Appeal” column for law.com, headlined “Monument at Houston Courthouse Tests the Limits of Ten Commandments Rulings.”
In opposing the ADA claims of proposed local package delivery van drivers who are hard of hearing, UPS obtains rehearing en banc from Ninth Circuit: Back on October 11, 2006, Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle had an article headlined “Deaf drivers due a chance at UPS jobs, court says; Some may be as safe as rivals with normal hearing, ruling holds.” The article begins, “Deaf people who are qualified to drive in every state should have a chance to drive small delivery trucks for United Parcel Service if they show they are as safe behind the wheel as employees with normal hearing, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a federal judge’s ruling two years ago that UPS, the world’s largest private package carrier, violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by refusing to allow deaf employees to compete for jobs driving its smaller trucks, those weighing 10,000 pounds or less.”
Circuit Judge Marsha S. Berzon issued that ruling on behalf of a unanimous three-judge Ninth Circuit panel. Yet Judge Berzon was the only active Ninth Circuit judge on that panel, and apparently some of her colleagues on that court were less than enthusiastic about the ruling, as today the Ninth Circuit issued an order granting rehearing en banc in the case.
