“New Jersey Senator Urges Delay on Repeal of Death Penalty”: The New York Times contains this article today.
The Newark Star-Ledger today contains an article headlined “A last-ditch appeal to keep death penalty; Pair urge life in prison with no chance of parole.”
And The Express-Times of Easton, Pennsylvania reports that “Lawmakers wrestle with death penalty; Vote set for Dec 13; Some want to refine law despite recommendations to abolish practice.”
Meanwhile, in death penalty news pertaining to California, The Los Angeles Times reports that “Plan to speed death penalty reviews seen as just one step; The proposal to spread the state high court’s burden draws praise; But cutting the shortage of lawyers who handle appeals is also viewed as vital.”
“Wal-mart’s lawsuit: legal, but wrong; The retail giant’s pursuit of funds paid to a severely injured former employee puts hardship on a family.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times. The editorial’s topic was the subject of a front page article that appeared in yesterday’s issue of The Wall Street Journal.
“Supreme Court to hear challenge of union-backed California law; The law prohibits employers from using state funds in attempts to dissuade workers from joining unions”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
And Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports today that “U.S. high court to review state law on anti-union spending.”
“Justices Will Decide if Handgun Kept at Home Is Individual Right”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times. In addition, the newspaper contains an editorial entitled “The Court and the Second Amendment.”
Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has a front page article headlined “Justices To Rule On D.C. Gun Ban; 2nd Amendment Case Could Affect Laws Nationwide.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court to rule on right to keep handguns at home; Justices will review an appeals court decision that struck down a 31-year-old Washington D.C., ban on pistols.”
In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Justices take on 2nd Amendment; It would be first time high court directly interprets right to bear arms.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Justices to Weigh Handgun Ban; Supreme Court Decision On a D.C. Ordinance Is Likely Amid Election Run.”
In The New York Sun, Joseph Goldstein reports that “Justices Take Up Issue of Gun Ownership Rights.”
And The Washington Times reports that “Court agrees to consider D.C. gun ban.” In addition, the newspaper contains an editorial entitled “Tackling the gun debate head-on.”
“Democrats Move to Block Bush Appointments”: This article, about a plan to prevent recess appointments, appears today in The New York Times.
And The Washington Times reports today that “Senate Democrats play recess hardball.”
“Law Firm Seeks Hefty Fee Payout For Enron Suit”: The Wall Street Journal today contains an article that begins, “A San Diego law firm founded by trial lawyer William Lerach is seeking nearly $700 million in legal fees for itself and other plaintiff lawyers for work on the Enron Corp. securities litigation, according to a filing yesterday in federal court in Houston.”
“Thanksgiving and the Federal Courts: The Recent Choices by and Regarding the Courts For Which We Should Truly Be Grateful.” Carl Tobias has this essay online today at FindLaw.
“The Most Dangerous Justice Rides into the Sunset”: Law Professors Paul H. Edelman and Jim Chen have posted this article (abstract with link for download) online at SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“). The article seeks to determine which Justice was most powerful during the time that William H. Rehnquist served as Chief Justice.
Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro reports that “Supreme Court Agrees to Take D.C. Gun Case.”
An article is headlined “What Does the Future Hold for the Federalists? How long will the conservative group’s power and prosperity last?”
And in other news, “Fired U.S. Attorneys Measure the Fallout; Former AG Gonzales is blamed for firings, but not the White House.”
“The Supreme Court, 2006 Term”: The contents of the November 2007 issue of The Harvard Law Review can be accessed via this link. The issue contains a comment from Fourth Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III titled “The Seattle and Louisville School Cases: There is no Other Way.”
The “leading cases” discussion of last Term’s punitive damages ruling in Philip Morris USA v. Williams seemed just a bit overblown in its condemnation of the decision.
“This appeal presents the question of whether student speech that threatens a Columbine-style attack on a school is protected by the First Amendment.” So begins a decision that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued today.
The Fifth Circuit’s opinion holds that “when a student threatens violence against a student body, his words are as much beyond the constitutional pale as yelling ‘fire’ in crowded theater, and such specific threatening speech to a school or its population is unprotected by the First Amendment. School administrators must be permitted to react quickly and decisively to address a threat of physical violence against their students, without worrying that they will have to face years of litigation second-guessing their judgment as to whether the threat posed a real risk of substantial disturbance.”
“They’ve Slept On It: Sixty-eight years after last taking on a gun case, the Supreme Court awakens to a violent debate.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Moussaoui Judge Questions Government”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A federal judge expressed frustration Tuesday that the government provided incorrect information about evidence in the prosecution of Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and raised the possibility of ordering a new trial in another high-profile terrorism case. At a post-trial hearing Tuesday for Ali al-Timimi, a Muslim cleric from Virginia sentenced to life in prison in 2004 for soliciting treason, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said she can no longer trust the CIA and other government agencies on how they represent classified evidence in terror cases.”
“U.S. Supreme Court takes up gun-rights case; It’s the first time since 1939 that the justices will confront the Constitution’s right to bear arms”: Warren Richey will have this article Wednesday in The Christian Science Monitor.
And Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers reports that “Supreme Court will hear historic gun rights case.”
“Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Gun Control Case”: Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times provides this news update.
“Supreme Court to Review D.C. Handgun Ban”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”
“The Supreme Court’s Wrong Turn — And How to Fix It: After posing as moderates in their confirmation hearings, Justices Roberts and Alito have moved the Court radically to the right; Henceforth, we should compel nominees to state how they would have ruled on specific cases, and why.” U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) will have this essay in the December 2007 issue of The American Prospect.
“Author: Reform court nomination process; Princeton provost discusses Supreme Court appointments.” Today’s issue of The Daily Pennsylvanian contains an article that begins, “The Supreme Court has the constitutional right to declare the ‘supreme law of the land,’ so the appointment of justices is a crucial aspect of the American judicial system. However, according to Princeton provost Christopher Eisgruber, the current system is subpar and in dire need of reform. Eisgruber visited the Penn Bookstore yesterday to promote his new book, The Next Justice, in which he prescribes criteria for change by outlining four major points in the ‘broken’ appointment process that he says ought to be repaired quickly.”
“U.S. Supreme Court won’t take Alamance County teen sex case”: This article appeared yesterday in The Burlington (N.C.) Times-News.
“Paterno’s salary is public, Supreme Court rules”: The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania provides a news update that begins, “The public has the right to know Joe Paterno’s salary, the state Supreme Court ruled today. The court, in a 4-2 decision, ruled that the State Employees’ Retirement System must release the salaries of Paterno and other Penn State University officials. This ruling stems from an open-records lawsuit filed by The Patriot-News that originated from a request for this information submitted in 2002 to the pension system.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Court says pay of Paterno, other PSU figures public.”
In response to the ruling, Penn State University has issued a press release entitled “Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules in favor of Patriot-News in state retirement system case.”
Today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania consists of a majority opinion and a dissenting opinion.
“Group asks Supreme Court to hear Ten Commandments case”: Geoffrey Fattah of The Deseret Morning News provides an update that begins, “A legal group based in Washington, D.C., announced Tuesday that it has filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a decision allowing a Utah religious group to erect its own monuments next to two displays of the Ten Commandments in Pleasant Grove and Duchesne cities.”
The American Center for Law and Justice has issued this press release in connection with the petition for writ of certiorari that it filed today.
My coverage of the Tenth Circuit‘s rulings (available online here and here) appeared at this link. And I covered the Tenth Circuit’s order denying rehearing en banc in a post you can access here.
“Supreme Court to Hear D.C. Gun Ban Case; Case Set to Be the First Second Amendment Issue Before the Court in 70 Years”: Ariane de Vogue and Dennis Powell have this report at ABCNews.com.
And BBC News reports that “Supreme Court to consider gun law; The US Supreme Court is to consider an American’s right to bear arms for the first time in nearly 70 years.”
“Justice Kennedy and the Second Amendment”: Orin Kerr, who recently clerked for Justice Kennedy, has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
“Supreme Court to rule on gun ownership rights”: Bill Mears of CNN.com provides this report.
What is the preemptive effect of the federal safety standards governing automobile glass? The preemptive effect of federal safety standards governing passenger restraints and airbags has been litigated extensively, but apparently today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is the first to examine the preemptive effect of the federal safety standards governing automobile glass. It is unlikely that the automobile industry will view today’s ruling as a favorable development.
“May a Trial Court Force the Parties to Waive Appellate Review?” That was the title of the July 23, 2007 installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com.
I orally argued the case that was the subject of that week’s column before a three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on October 2, 2007. Today, that panel issued a unanimous, precedential decision in my client’s favor.
Because that installment of my column generated a large volume of email from readers, I thought it might interest some to learn how the matter was resolved on appeal.
“Second Amendment’s Day in Court”: Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”
“Justices to rule on gun rights; The Supreme Court will determine whether the 2nd Amendment allows individuals to have a gun at home for self-defense”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.
“Court agrees to rule on gun case”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “High Court to Hear D.C. Gun Ban Case.”
The Associated Press provides reports headlined “Supreme Court Will Hear Guns Case“; “Court Takes Alabama Voting Rights Case“; and “Supreme Court to Rule on Union Law.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Rule on Constitutional Gun Rights.”
And Reuters reports that “High court to rule on D.C. handgun ban.”
You can access at this link today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The D.C. Circuit issued its Second Amendment ruling on March 9, 2007, and you can access the decision at this link. I wrote about the ruling in an installment of my “On Appeal” column headlined “State of the Second Amendment: Does It Apply in the District of Columbia?” You can access this blog’s earlier coverage of the D.C. Circuit’s ruling here, here, and here.
“California’s high court seeks death penalty fix; Justices propose to deal with the massive backlog by allowing case review to be transferred to lower courts”: Henry Weinstein has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports today that “State Supreme Court’s proposal would speed up Death Row appeals.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Court Seeks Altered Death Penalty Appeal.”
My earlier coverage appeared at this link.
“Ziegler allegations a ‘blip’; Other judges who were disciplined engaged in more egregious acts, appeals judge says”: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel today contains an article that begins, “The conflict-of-interest allegations against state Supreme Court Justice Annette K. Ziegler hardly register as ‘a blip on the screen’ compared with other judicial ethics cases, one of the three judges reviewing Ziegler’s case said Monday.”
Today’s edition of The Wisconsin State Journal contains an article headlined “Attorney: Ziegler inadvertently violated ethics code.”
The Badger Herald reports that “State justice’s hearing commences.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Panel hears arguments in case of sitting Supreme Court justice.”
“Minnesota’s Embattled U.S. Attorney Steps Down”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”
“U.S. Attorney for Minnesota to Leave Post; Paulose Was Facing Justice Dept. Probe”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.
The New York Times reports today that “Amid Turmoil, U.S. Attorney Will Shift to Headquarters.”
The Los Angeles Times reports that “Controversial U.S. attorney gets new post; The reassignment of Rachel Paulose, who clashed with career prosecutors in Minnesota, suggests the new attorney general seeks to quickly address Gonzales-era problems.”
The Minneapolis Star Tribune contains articles headlined “Minnesota;s embattled U.S. attorney steps down; U.S. attorney was under fire from her staff and will take a post in D.C.“; “Now, focus is on getting office back on track; Paulose’s departure brought reactions from relief to silence from Minnesota’s delegation in Washington“; and “Politics could slow nomination of new Minnesota U.S. attorney; Paulose successor could easily serve out Bush term without confirmation.”
And The St. Paul Pioneer Press reports that “Controversial U.S. prosecutor reassigned to D.C.; Tenure in Minnesota marred by complaints over management style, questions of cronyism.”
“Fundraising poses a challenge for UCI’s law school; Just as incoming Dean Erwin Chemerinsky finally gets his post locked in, a new obstacle awaits: raising millions of dollars to open the institution, without an alumni base.” The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.
“Hawaii panel approves appeals court nominee”: This article appears today in The Honolulu Advertiser.
And The Honolulu Star-Bulletin reports today that “Appellate court pick gets Senate panel OK.”
