How Appealing

Thursday, October 11, 2007

“Fight over court role in US eavesdropping; President Bush and Democrats battle anew over oversight of government surveillance operations”: This article will appear Friday in The Christian Science Monitor.

Posted at 10:14 PM by Howard Bashman

“Nacchio appeal detailed in 58 pages; The brief argues there was insufficient evidence and the Denver trial took place in an atmosphere of ‘vitriol'”: Yesterday’s edition of The Denver Post contained this article.

Yesterday’s edition of The Rocky Mountain News contained an article headlined “Nacchio appeal claims ‘prejudgment, vitriol.’” And today’s newspaper reports that “Court unlikely to toss conviction, experts say.”

The Wall Street Journal reports today that “Nacchio Appeal Argues Qwest Woes Unforeseeable.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Ex-Qwest Chief Nacchio Appeals Conviction, Sentence.”

Reuters reports that “Nacchio appeal says trades not based on inside data.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Court Documents Reveal Nacchio’s Defense.”

Via’s “Law Blog,” you can access the brief for appellant at this link.

Posted at 7:48 PM by Howard Bashman

“Telecom Immunity Firing Up Congress’ Surveillance Debate”: Lawrence Hurley has this article today in The Daily Journal of California.

Posted at 6:05 PM by Howard Bashman

Brian Lamb of C-SPAN interviews Justice Clarence Thomas: If you missed Sunday evening’s broadcast of “Q & A,” you can now access the video here (RealPlayer required) and the transcript here. You can also download a podcast mp3 version here (19.7 MB audio file).

Posted at 4:35 PM by Howard Bashman

“Judge chastised for vacating assault conviction; ‘Deviation from laws of Commonwealth'”: The Boston Globe today contains an article that begins, “A prominent federal judge issued an angry rebuke yesterday against his counterpart in the state district court, adding another extraordinary twist in the now failed attempts of a repeat convict to sidestep a lengthy prison term under the career criminal statute.”

Posted at 4:20 PM by Howard Bashman

State of Hawaii, which had participated on appeal as an amicus curiae, can intervene to file petition for rehearing en banc in case holding that individuals can sue under the federal civil rights act to enforce sec. 5(f) of the Hawaiian Admission Act: You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

The original three-judge panel’s ruling, which I previously covered here, suggested that the losing party might be well-served by seeking rehearing en banc:

A considerable line of precedent in this circuit holds that Native Hawaiians, as beneficiaries of the sec. 5(f) trust, have a right under the Admission Act that is enforceable by sec. 1983. The district court, however, held to the contrary, taking the view that recent Supreme Court cases have so undermined our prior case law that suits like this one may no longer be maintained. After a careful comparison of our prior cases with the
recent Supreme Court sec. 1983 cases on which the district court relied, we cannot agree that there is a conflict sufficient to justify a district court or a three-judge panel of this court disregarding well-established precedent.

However, the losing party did not file for rehearing on the issue, and only the State of Hawaii — a non-party amicus curiae — did so, simultaneously moving to intervene as a party to thereby have standing to seek rehearing en banc. Today’s order grants that motion and orders Hawaii’s rehearing petition filed. This may not be the last that we hear of this case.

Posted at 4:03 PM by Howard Bashman

“Thomas Book a Best-Seller Online”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “By one unscientific measure taken Thursday, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was not as popular as Alan Greenspan, but a bit better off than Rosie O’Donnell. Thomas’ autobiography, like memoirs by Greenspan and O’Donnell, was among the best-selling books on The justice’s new book also ranked a few places ahead of another book about the court.”

Posted at 2:08 PM by Howard Bashman

“The crux of the district court’s argument for Cavera’s above-Guidelines sentence is its belief that trafficking firearms in urban environments threatens greater harm than trafficking in less densely populated places.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today issued a revised decision in United States v. Cavera.

Today’s ruling replaces a decision that the same three-judge panel issued on June 6, 2007. My earlier coverage of that ruling appeared at this link. And the trial court’s opinion in support of its above-Guidelines sentence can be accessed here.

Posted at 11:20 AM by Howard Bashman

“It’s Time For a Big Story on the Supreme Court”: In this post at’s “Law Blog,” Peter Lattman previews the cover story of the October 22, 2007 issue of Time magazine.

Posted at 9:37 AM by Howard Bashman

“State Supreme Court to hear case challenging 49ers pat-down policy”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “The state Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether the San Francisco 49ers invade their fans’ privacy by conducting pat-down searches at the stadium gates, a measure ordered by the National Football League to catch potential terrorists. A state appeals court upheld the searches in a 2-1 ruling in July, saying two fans who challenged the policy had tacitly agreed to be searched when they bought their season tickets. But six of the high court’s seven justices voted Wednesday to set the appellate ruling aside and review the case.”

My thoughts on why the “consent” approach is intellectually bankrupt can be found in the July 9, 2007 installment of my “On Appeal” column for

Posted at 9:35 AM by Howard Bashman

“Lawyers in Citgo trial annoyed by online ‘fly'”: The San Antonio Express-News today contains an article that begins, “A dispute between a South Texas activist-turned-cyber-fly and a giant oil company could reverberate across the World Wide Web, depending on the decision of a federal court in Corpus Christi. Citgo Petroleum Corp. wants a federal judge to order a retrial in one of the biggest environmental cases in years because of a local activist’s blog entry that portrays her as a ‘fly on the wall’ in the jury room during deliberations.”

Posted at 9:30 AM by Howard Bashman

“Questions raised about judge’s fairness”: Yesterday’s edition of The Galveston County Daily News contained an article that begins, “Since U.S. District Judge Samuel B. Kent has been accused of — and apparently sanctioned for — sexual harassment, some people are wondering how he can preside over such cases himself. One particular decision, dating from 2002 and involving a complaint filed by a former employee of the Galveston County Sheriff’s Office, might be a case in point.”

And the newspaper’s publisher, Dolph Tillotson, had an op-ed entitled “Kent should resign” that begins, “Federal District Judge Samuel B. Kent should resign his post, or the U.S. House of Representatives should begin an impeachment inquiry. That is a judgment not offered lightly, and it is based on the belief that the appearance of justice in Judge Kent’s court is damaged beyond repair.”

Posted at 9:25 AM by Howard Bashman

“Judge allows California cities to ban cat declawing”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “The state Supreme Court allowed cities in California to ban cat declawing Wednesday, rejecting veterinarians’ challenge to a West Hollywood ordinance that could lead to copycat measures elsewhere.”

Posted at 9:03 AM by Howard Bashman

“Case of Texas Murderer Engrosses Supreme Court”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.

Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Chief Justice Prolongs Executive Powers Debate.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “The Law of the Land: Does an American or international court get to say what it is?

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “High court cool to Bush claim on death cases.”

Joan Biskupic of USA Today reports that “Death row dispute puts Bush at odds with Texas; State resists order to review Mexican’s case.”

In The Houston Chronicle, Patty Reinert reports that “Texas fights at Supreme Court in death row case; Solicitor general argues that the World Court and the president don’t trump state law in Mexican inmates controversy.”

In The Dallas Morning News, Todd J. Gillman reports that “Supreme Court hears debate on scope of president’s power in court affairs; Justices must decide if he had power to demand review sought by tribunal.”

And The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that “Bush administration, Texas square off over treaty.”

Posted at 8:54 AM by Howard Bashman

“Supreme Court nominee wins praise; Kaine’s pick for high court called ‘Va. success story'”: The Richmond Times-Dispatch today contains an article that begins, “Gov. Timothy M. Kaine said ‘the enormous talent pool on the bench’ in Virginia gave him plenty of choices for a Supreme Court appointment. He picked Chesapeake Circuit Judge S. Bernard Goodwyn. Kaine announced Goodwyn’s Virginia Supreme Court appointment yesterday morning.”

The Virginian-Pilot reports today that “Kaine appoints Chesapeake judge to Virginia Supreme Court.”

And The Washington Post reports that “Kaine Appoints Chesapeake Judge to Supreme Court.”

Posted at 8:30 AM by Howard Bashman

“Attorney General Nominee Made His Name With Terror Cases”: The Washington Post today contains a front page article that begins, “Early in the Bush administration, Michael B. Mukasey’s position at the intersection of terrorism and the justice system may have cost him a promotion. Mukasey, then chief judge of the main federal court in New York City, caught the eye of the White House for elevation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.”

Posted at 8:22 AM by Howard Bashman

“Home Court Advantage”: Today in The New York Times, Law Professor Michael J. Broyde and Deborah E. Lipstadt have an op-ed that begins, “Thanks to the Internet, universal access to the printed word and economic globalization, the 21st century is expected to be shaped by the free exchange of ideas. But casting a shadow over this optimistic prediction is the emerging threat of ‘libel tourism.'”

Posted at 8:15 AM by Howard Bashman

“Supreme Disgrace”: The New York Times today contains an editorial that begins, “The Supreme Court exerts leadership over the nation’s justice system, not just through its rulings, but also by its choice of cases — the ones it agrees to hear and the ones it declines.”

And The Los Angeles Times today contains an editorial entitled “The human cost of secrecy: Even if the Supreme Court turned away a torture victim’s case, El-Masri deserves an apology and compensation” along with an op-ed by Rosa Brooks entitled “Too much cloak and swagger: When the White House plays ‘I’ve Got a Secret,’ who is being protected?

Posted at 7:58 AM by Howard Bashman

“School Integration Efforts Face Renewed Opposition; Supreme Court Ruling Sways Milton Battle; Off to Private School”: This front page article appears today in The Wall Street Journal.

Posted at 7:55 AM by Howard Bashman