“The precise issue on appeal is whether the District Court had jurisdiction to certify a class consisting of claims arising from the infringement of unregistered copyrights and to approve a settlement with respect to those claims. We hold that it did not.” So holds the majority on a divded three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a ruling issued today. The case in which the decision issued is captioned In re: Literary Works in Elec. Databases Copyright Litig.
Also today, two of the three judges on that panel joined in a separate opinion explaining why they chose not to recuse from deciding that case even though they very likely were members of the putative class whose claims were subject to the settlement in question. One of the two judges joined in the majority opinion dismissing the case for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, while the other dissented from that outcome. Before deciding what to do, these two judges sought the views of the Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which apparently recommended that both judges recuse.
“U.S. Trial Lawyers, Back on Offense, Take On Railroads, China”: Bloomberg News provides this report.
“Death is human cost of misreading 2nd Amendment”: Columnist Xan White has this op-ed today in The Yale Daily News.
“U.S. judge orders Bush to release records of telecom firm contacts”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “A federal judge in San Francisco ordered the Bush administration Wednesday to release records of any recent lobbying contacts with telecommunications companies by Dec. 10, in time for a congressional debate on the president’s push to protect the firms from suits over electronic surveillance.”
My most recent earlier coverage appears at this link.
“Whose castle? Surprise visits to the homes of welfare applicants in San Diego County are proper and justified.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
“NY Man Fights for Anti-Osama Plates”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A retired police officer is seeking a court order to force the state Department of Motor Vehicles to drop its demand that he return vanity license plates calling for the capture or death of Osama bin Laden.”
And The New York Post reported yesterday that “‘GETOSAMA’ plate man sues DMV.”
“5th Circuit Council Pressed to Pursue Sex Harassment Complaint Against Federal Judge”: Texas Lawyer provides a report that begins, “The woman who alleges that U.S. District Judge Samuel B. Kent of Galveston, Texas, sexually harassed her wants the 5th Circuit Judicial Council to take further action.”
“Alleged Nazi Guard Appeals Deportation”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Three decades after the federal government began trying to deport a former autoworker accused of helping murder Jewish prisoners in Nazi death camps, his lawyer says his last fight may be at hand. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled oral arguments for Thursday on John Demjanjuk’s challenge of a final removal order by an immigration judge.”
“Supreme Court Weighs Maine’s Tobacco Law”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.
And David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court weighs Internet sales regulation; The Bush administration opposes restrictions favored by states to prevent minors from buying cigarettes and other products on the Web.”
Why is this page loading more slowly than usual this morning? If you are having to wait longer than usual for the blog posts on this page to appear on your computer monitor this morning, the law.com headline box in the upper right-hand corner of this page is to blame. It seems that the law.com site is having some problems today, and those problems are why it is taking this page significantly longer than usual to appear.
The good news, such as it is, is that those problems do not prevent me from updating this site at my usual rate, so new posts will continue to appear quite regularly for those willing to endure the extra time it is taking for this page to refresh.
“5th Circuit extends limits on student speech”: Douglas Lee has this essay online at the First Amendment Center.
My earlier coverage of last week’s Fifth Circuit ruling appears at this link.
“Massive apartheid case on way to the Court”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
Last month, I had this post reporting on the Second Circuit’s ruling in the case. As Lyle notes in his post, yesterday the same three-judge Second Circuit panel issued an order explaining why the majority had denied a stay of its ruling. Yesterday’s order also includes a dissent from the denial of a stay.
In today’s edition of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: The newspaper contains articles headlined “Gory abortion banners stir passions” and “Prosecutor sides with sex offender.”
“Maine’s Tobacco-Delivery Law Faces Test”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”
“Government ordered to release documents in controversial death”: Geoffrey Fattah of The Deseret Morning News has an update that begins, “On the same day that the federal government moved to block the release of a sensitive government report to a Salt Lake City attorney, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the motion to stay and ordered the government to release the documents. Judges with the 10th Circuit were swift in their action, filing an order denying the government’s motion to stay pending an appeal of the court’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, within hours of receiving the motion.”
And Pamela Manson and Robert Boczkiewicz of The Salt Lake Tribune have a news update headlined “DOJ bid to delay Trentadue probe disclosure going nowhere fast.”
My earlier coverage of this case appears here and here.
“Judge: Feds Must Release Telecom Records.” The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “An electronic privacy group challenging President Bush’s domestic spying program scored a minor victory when a judge ordered the federal government to release information about lobbying efforts by telecommunications companies to protect them from prosecution.”
In response to yesterday’s order of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the organization Electronic Frontier Foundation issued a news release entitled “EFF Wins Fast-Track Release of Telecom Lobbying Records; Judge Cancels Friday Hearing, Orders Government to Comply by December 10.”
Access online today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument transcript in Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transp. Assn., No. 06-457: The Court has posted the transcript at this link.
“An Enigmatic Court? Examining the Roberts Court As It Begins Year Three.” This event was held at the Pepperdine University School of Law on the afternoon of October 19, 2007. The very serious wildfires in Malibu, California soon thereafter caused that law school’s web site to go off-line for a while.
That law school’s web site has since come back online, and now it provides access to video of the event. All of the video segments can be accessed via this link.
For those who wish to access the video segments directly, you can do so using the following links (Windows Media Player is required to launch these video segments):
Part One: “Overview of the Roberts Court” (1 hour and 41 minutes) featuring USA Today Supreme Court correspondent Joan Biskupic; Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen; Law Professor Douglas Kmiec; Law Professor Vikram Amar; Law Professor Kathleen Sullivan; and Dean Kenneth Starr.
Part Two: “Roundtable on the work of the Roberts Court in its first two terms” (17 minutes).
Part Three: “Supreme Court reasoning on trial” (1 hour and 21 minutes) featuring Ninth Circuit Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, in a mock trial of the reasoning of the Court’s decision in Parents Involved v. Seattle School District Number 1.
Part Four: “Roundtable on the Roberts effort at consensus, competing methods of constitutional interpretation, judicial personalities, and a quick look at the current docket” (51 minutes).
How much in attorneys’ fees should it cost to handle an appeal? Obviously, there’s no one-size-fits-all answer to that question. But today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit authorized the recovery of approximately $63,000 in attorneys’ fees for defending on appeal a copyright and trademark infringement judgment relating to everyone’s favorite farting plush doll, “Pull My Finger Fred.” You can access today’s ruling at this link.
Back on March 20, 2007, I had this post reporting on the Seventh Circuit’s earlier merits-related ruling in this case. And the very next day, I had this post providing online access to the appellate briefs and oral argument audio.
“Bonds’ perjury case goes to BALCO judge”: This article appears today in The San Francisco Chronicle.
Today in The San Jose Mercury News, Howard Mintz reports that “Bonds case given to new judge; Illston in familiar territory: Handled BALCO prosecutions.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Barry Bonds Perjury Case Is Transferred.”
“US raid on factory criticized by court; Callous handling of workers cited”: The Boston Globe today contains an article that begins, “Add a federal appeals court to those criticizing how the government handled the March arrest of 361 immigrant workers at a New Bedford leather-goods factory.”
And The Providence (R.I.) Journal reports today that “Dismissal of raid lawsuit upheld.”
You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit at this link.
“Motormouth: Geoffrey Fieger’s fiery tongue has earned him millions; Now it could cost the Detroit Lawyer his career.” Terry Carter has this article in the December 2007 issue of ABA Journal magazine.
“The ABA Journal Blawg 100”: ABA Journal magazine has issued its “Blawg 100” list. The complete list can be accessed here.
Via this link, you can vote for your favorite blawgs in various categories. Votes for “How Appealing” may be cast in the “Generally Speaking” category.
And a feature titled “ForeBlawggers: Seven lawyers who started the blawg revolution” includes photos of the bloggers. On a related note, Denise Howell’s “Bag and Baggage” blog is today celebrating its sixth birthday. Happy blawgiversary, Denise!
“Court Skeptical of Maine Tobacco Law”: Pete Yost of The Associated Press provides this report.
And Dow Jones Newswires report that “Maine Tobacco Shipping Law Gets Little Sympathy At High Court.”
“Cover-up case is appealed”: Today in The Deseret Morning News, Geoffrey Fattah has an article that begins, “A Salt Lake City attorney will not be getting access to a sensitive government report regarding the mysterious death of his brother in a federal facility anytime soon. A week after the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the U.S. government’s request to reconsider its decision allowing attorney Jesse Trentadue access to the conclusions of an investigation into accusations of a cover-up, attorneys for the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency filed on Tuesday a motion to stay the court’s order, pending an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
My earlier coverage of this case appears here and here.
“Attorney Yagman sentenced to 3 years for tax evasion, fraud; Convicted of fraud and tax evasion, the lawyer known for taking on the LAPD says government wants to destroy him”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
And The Associated Press reports that “High-Profile Lawyer Sentenced for Taxes.”
“Former N.C. Chief Justice Takes Up Prisoner’s Case; Retired Jurist May Argue Before Former Colleagues on Behalf of Man Convicted With Faulty Science”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “A North Carolina man who was convicted of murder two decades ago with the help of now-discredited FBI scientific testimony took his quest for a new trial to the state’s Supreme Court yesterday — and enlisted the court’s former chief justice to argue on his behalf.”
The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina reports today that “New trial request hinges on confession; Bullet analysis also called invalid.”
And The Fayetteville Observer reports that “Lawyers make push for Hunt’s innocence.”
Removal ordered for judge to whom unclaimed cell phone = trip to prison cell: The New York Times reports today that “Panel Rebukes Judge, Citing ‘Lunacy’ in Court.”
The Niagara Gazette reports today that “Restaino ordered removed; Commission cites abuse of judicial power in March 2005 incident.”
The Buffalo News reports that “Restaino ordered removed as Niagara Falls judge; Commission says he abused power.”
And The New York Law Journal reports that “Judge’s Removal Recommended for Prolonged Tirade Over Courtroom Cell Phone.”
You can access the decision of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct at this link.
“Supreme Court Is Referee in Delaware River Fight”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports today that “Supreme Court hears riverfront arguments; Advocates for N.J. and Del. addressed issues over a planned LNG facility.”
The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware reports that “Del., N.J. go to Supreme Court; Justices quiz lawyers over long-running boundary dispute.”
The Newhouse News Service reports that “Court skeptical on LNG case.”
And law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “States Spar Over River Rights at High Court.”
“A Loss for Privacy Rights”: The New York Times today contains an editorial that begins, “The Constitution protects individuals against unreasonable searches, but for this protection to have practical meaning, the courts must enforce it. This week, the Supreme Court let stand a disturbing ruling out of California that allows law enforcement to barge into people’s homes without a warrant. The case has not prompted much outrage, perhaps because the people whose privacy is being invaded are welfare recipients, but it is a serious setback for the privacy rights of all Americans.”
“Court to release same-day recordings of detainee cases”: Joan Biskupic has this article today in USA Today.
“Al-Arian Lawyers Brace for New Contempt Charge”: Josh Gerstein has this article today in The New York Sun.
“Right judge for sex case investigation?” Today in The Houston Chronicle, columnist Rick Casey has an op-ed that begins, “Chief Judge Edith Jones of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held a key position in the controversial disciplining of U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent.”
And today’s edition of The Galveston County Daily News reproduces a letter (fifth item) to the ranking Republican on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee from W. Chris Peden, a Republican candidate for U.S. Congress from Friendswood, Texas. The letter begins, “I am writing to ask you to support an impeachment inquiry into the conduct of Galveston’s former District Judge, Samuel B. Kent.”
“A Choose Life plate for Illinois?” Columnist Phil Kadner has this op-ed today in The Southtown Star.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard oral argument in the case yesterday, and you can download the oral argument audio via this link (10.1MB mp3 file). The three-judge panel consisted of Circuit Judges Daniel A. Manion, Terence T, Evans, and Diane S. Sykes. During the oral argument, Judge Evans mentions his own sports-related specialty license plate.
In advance of the oral argument, the Thomas More Society issued a press release headlined “‘Choose Life’ Specialty License Plates Go Before U.S. Court of Appeals Today; Three-Judge Panel to Hear Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White’s Appeal of Lower Court Order to Begin Producing ‘Choose Life’ Plates.” That organization has also posted online the parties’ appellate briefs, and you can access them via this link.
In January 2007, I had this post reporting on the federal district court’s ruling in this case.
“A test of Maine regulations on Internet tobacco sales to minors; The US Supreme Court on Wednesday weighs whether the state law impedes interstate shipping”: Warren Richey has this article today in The Christian Science Monitor.
Pete Yost of The Associated Press reports that “Court Considers Internet Tobacco Sales.”
And Stateline.org reports that “Tobacco case could limit state powers.”
