“Maraman sworn in as justice”: Friday’s edition of The Pacific Daily News of Guam contains an article that begins, “The Guam Judicial Center was packed with well-wishers sitting, standing in the center’s atrium and looking down from the balcony as Katherine Maraman was sworn in as an associate justice for the Supreme Court of Guam. Maraman filled the seat vacated by Frances Tydingco-Gatewood upon Tydingco-Gatewood’s appointment as the chief Judge of the District Court of Guam in November of 2006.”
“Benjamin won’t withdraw from Massey case”: The Herald-Dispatch of Huntington, West Virginia provides this news update.
The West Virginia Record provides a report headlined “Benjamin: Count me in.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Benjamin refuses to step away from Massey case.”
“First Circuit weighs in on Rule 32(h) issue soon to be addressed by SCOTUS”: At his “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog, Law Professor Doug Berman has this post about an en banc ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decided today by a vote of 3-2.
Doug’s post also notes the interesting statements found at the outset of Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella‘s dissenting opinion. It almost sounds as though Judge Torruella is complaining that the en banc decision was being rushed out the door before he had an adequate opportunity to offer an explanation of the reasons for his dissent.
It also appears that Judge Torruella’s dissent cites to his separate dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc in the case captioned Cerqueira v. American Airlines, Inc., even though the PACER docket entries in the Cerqueira case do not yet reflect the entry of an order denying rehearing en banc. That’s got to be an unusual to learn that rehearing en banc has been (or, more likely, is about to be) denied.
“Kennedy Defends Foreign Law References”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Just who was Justice Anthony Kennedy calling out when he fired back at critics of the Supreme Court’s use of international law in its opinions?”
“Appeal on Time, or Don’t Appeal at All, U.S. Supreme Court Advises”: Back on June 18, 2007, I had this installment of my weekly “On Appeal” column for law.com discussing the U.S. Supreme Court‘s then-recent 5-4 ruling in Bowles v. Russell.
Last month, the “Colloquy” web site of the Northwestern University Law Review published two essays about the Bowles ruling. Law Professor Perry Dane‘s essay is entitled “Sad Time: Thoughts on Jurisdictionality, the Legal Imagination, and Bowles v. Russell” (also available in PDF format).
And attorney E. King Poor has an essay entitled “The Jurisdictional Time Limit for an Appeal: The Worst Kind of Deadline–Except for All Others” (also available in PDF format).
“Faxed Notice of Appeal Not ‘Filed,’ Not Effective”: This post at the blog “Alabama Appellate Watch” reports on a ruling that the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals issued last week.
“Law Blogging for Fun and Profit: Building Your Audience, Building Your Practice.” Along with Kimberly A. Kralowec of “The UCL Practitioner” blog and J. Craig Williams of the “May it Please the Court” blog, I’ll be taking part in this West Legalworks audio program live at noon eastern time today.
There’s still time to register for the program via this link, and by using the code WLW15 at checkout, you can obtain a 15 percent discount on the program’s cost.
“Cost-cutting may close courts; Workers may be sent home without pay; A judge calls it a ‘catastrophe'”: The St. Petersburg Times today contains an article that begins, “Judges across Florida say the state’s budget crunch will shutter courthouses for weeks this spring as thousands of court employees are sent home without pay. At risk, they say, is a halt to all civil litigation for those weeks, such as foreclosures and divorces. All that would be heard is priority family law cases and critical criminal proceedings.”
“Rigged Trials at Gitmo”: Ross Tuttle has this article online at The Nation.
On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “Supreme Court Allows Suit over 401(K) Loss” (featuring Nina Totenberg) and “Congressman: U.S. Not in Danger Without Spy Law.”
RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.
“Schiavo judge gets no shelter from storms; Judge George Greer moves from the Terri Schiavo case to the divorce wars”: This article appeared last month in The St. Petersburg Times.
“AG backs abortion buffer zone; Her brief responds to group’s lawsuit”: The Boston Globe today contains an article that begins, “Attorney General Martha Coakley said yesterday that a new law restricting antiabortion activists from standing within 35 feet of an abortion clinic’s entrance did not violate their right to free speech. Coakley filed a brief in federal court in response to a lawsuit filed last month by antiabortion activists, who oppose the new restriction, saying it violates their constitutional right to protest on a public sidewalk.”
“Lawyers divided on death penalty system; Prosecutors and defense attorneys tell a state panel that the system is dysfunctional but differ on solutions”: Henry Weinstein has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
“Supreme Court gives business 2 wins; It interprets federal law broadly to protect companies from juries and state regulators”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has articles headlined “Supreme Court Shields Medical-Device Makers; Decision Rules Out State Lawsuits Over Products That Meet FDA’s Highest Standards” and “Supreme Court Strikes Down State’s Law to Diminish Internet Tobacco Sales to Teens.”
In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Court draws line on state safeguards.”
law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “Supreme Court Continues Pro-Business Stance; But a high court ruling in an ERISA case prevents a clean sweep for business.”
The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that “Ruling shields med-tech firms; The Supreme Court decision in a case involving Medtronic curbed the ability of consumers to sue medical-product makers.”
The St. Paul Pioneer Press reports that “Justices side with Medtronic; Supreme Court reins in medical device lawsuits.”
Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “High court ruling favors medical device firms.”
And in The New York Sun, Joseph Goldstein reports that “In Blow to Spitzer, Court Strikes Down Tobacco Law.”
“Top Court Allows Suit Over 401(k)”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.
The Wall Street Journal reports that “Ruling Allows Workers to Sue On 401(k) Losses.”
USA Today reports that “High court greenlights worker’s 401(k) suit; It’s the first time an individual can sue employer over losses.”
And The Washington Post contains an editorial entitled “A Victory for Workers: The Supreme Court allows employees to sue their retirement plans.”
“Time asks Indonesian court to reverse Suharto libel ruling”: Reuters provides this report.
And The Associated Press reports that “Time Appeals Indonesian Verdict.”
“Ex-Inmate Crusades Against Judge Nominee”: The Associated Press provides this report. And don’t miss this related post of mine from last night.
“Stifling Online Speech”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial that begins, “The rise of Internet journalism has opened a new front in the battle to protect free speech. A federal judge last week ordered the disabling of Wikileaks.org, a muckraking Web site. That stifles important speech and violates the First Amendment. It should be reversed, and Wikileaks should be allowed to resume operations.”
“Journalism on Trial”: Today in The Wall Street Journal, Judith Miller has an op-ed that begins, “There are many ways to intimidate or silence journalists. One depressing tactic in this country is to jail them for refusing to divulge the names of confidential sources who have provided sensitive information for articles, or to turn over telephone logs, emails, memos or notebooks identifying those informants to whom reporters have pledged confidentiality.”
“U.S. Investigates Whether Lott Had Role in Mississippi Judge Case; Federal Inquiry Examines Former Senator’s Links To a Scruggs Suit Ruling”: This article appears today in The Wall Street Journal.
“Unknown Entity Backs Suit To Expose U.S.-Kuwait Pact”: Josh Gerstein has this article today in The New York Sun.
“Supreme Court snuffs Maine’s Internet cigarette sales rule; The justices, citing need for unfettered interstate commerce, say delivery companies cannot be required to verify that tobacco recipients are over 18”: Warren Richey will have this article Thursday in The Christian Science Monitor.
And Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Court rubs out Maine law regulating Internet tobacco sales.”
“Supreme Court Rules Employees Can Sue Over 401(k) Misconduct”: The Washington Post will contain this front page article on Thursday.
Thursday in The Christian Science Monitor, Warren Richey will have an article headlined “Supreme Court rules that employees can sue 401(k) managers; The 7-to-2 decision gives workers and retirees recourse for the mishandling of individual retirement accounts.”
And The Los Angeles Times provides a news update headlined “Supreme Court rules workers can sue over 401(k) losses.”
“Appeal to stall Jefferson trial for months”: The Times-Picayune of New Orleans provides a news update that begins, “New Orleans Congressman William Jefferson on Wednesday appealed a key ruling in his public corruption case, a move certain to delay the trial — possibly until the fall election season.”
“Meet Bush’s Prison Nominee: Tennessee’s next trial court judge might be a prison company executive who has less courtroom experience than most inmates.” This article appears online today at the web site of Mother Jones magazine.
“Justices Rule on Retroactivity of Decisions”: Linda Greenhouse will have this article Thursday in The New York Times.
“Justices Make It Tougher to Sue Medical Device Makers”: Linda Greenhouse will have this article Thursday in The New York Times. Tomorrow’s paper will also contain a news analysis headlined “Justices Add Legal Complications to Debate on F.D.A.’s Competence.”
And Patti Waldmeir of Financial Times reports that “Supreme Court ruling limits medical lawsuits.”
“Why Protect Private Arms Possession?” Law Professor Michael Steven Green has posted this article (abstract with link for download) online at SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“).
Coincidentally, Professor Green clerked after law school for Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner. This week’s topic at “The Becker-Posner Blog” is “Can Gun Control Laws be Effective?” Becker’s post is here, while Posner’s response is here.
Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio is reporting: On this evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered,” she had an audio segment entitled “Federal Rules Beat State Laws in High Court Rulings.”
And on today’s broadcast of “Morning Edition,” she had an audio segment entitled “Retaliation Case Reaches Supreme Court.”
RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.
Available online at “SCOTUSblog”: Lyle Denniston has posts titled “‘Creating’ or ‘declaring’ rights” and “Another way to limit Sec. 1981.”
And Tom Goldstein has a post titled “Practice Pointer: Navigating a Novel Cert. Problem.”
Access online Zacarias Moussaoui’s Brief for Appellant filed last month in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: A law librarian who works for a west coast-based law school and who is a fan of “How Appealing” yesterday kindly sent to me a PDF file consisting of Zacarias Moussaoui’s opening brief in his current Fourth Circuit appeal. The file is quite large — almost 18MB — so I’ve posted it to eSnips. You can download the brief in PDF format via this link. The brief — which is over 200 pages in length — contains lots of redactions that were made before the Fourth Circuit was able to release it for public review.
Seven attorneys from Arnold & Porter‘s Washington, D.C. office, and one attorney from Richmond, Virginia, are listed on the cover of the brief as Moussaoui’s attorneys on appeal.
Last Saturday’s issue of The Washington Post reported on Moussaoui’s opening brief in an article headlined “Moussaoui Deprived of Constitutional Rights, Attorneys Say; Appeal Seeks to Overturn Guilty Plea, Life Sentence Because of Evidence Kept Secret, Counsel Choice Denied.” According to the article, the Fourth Circuit unsealed Moussaoui’s appellate brief last Friday.
Examining the retroactive effect of a newly adopted statutory cap on non-economic damages for “any injury to a person in an action arising out of a motor vehicle accident”: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued this ruling today. The statutory cap in question is one that now exists under the local law of the U.S. Virgin Islands, but the cap took effect after the plaintiff was injured and after the plaintiff had filed his lawsuit. The law imposing the cap is silent concerning its retroactive effect.
The plaintiff sustained his injuries when the motorcycle he was driving was hit by a jeep driven by United States Army recruiter. Thus, today’s Third Circuit ruling, which holds that the damages cap cannot apply to this plaintiff’s claim, is adverse to the United States government.
“Legality of Bush bugging policy shifts to S.F.” Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal Tuesday to hear a lawsuit challenging President Bush’s electronic surveillance program left a critical balance-of-powers question – whether judges can decide the legality of the secretive program – in the hands of two federal courts in San Francisco.”
Ninth Circuit examines the constitutionality of a warrantless search of a storage unit when the person who lived in the storage unit denied permission to search but the person who owned the storage unit granted permission to search: On behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt applies the U.S. Supreme Court‘s 2006 ruling in Georgia v. Randolph to hold that the search was unlawful.
Today’s opinion states:
Next, the government argues that Randolph does not apply because the storage unit was not a residence. As an initial matter, Murphy’s living situation was unconventional, but the record shows that the storage units were the closest thing that he had to a residence. He was sleeping in unit 14 and storing his belongings in unit 17. For the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, this is sufficient to create an expectation of privacy and thus the authority to refuse a search. Moreover, even if the storage units could not be considered a residence, there is no reason that the rule in Randolph should be limited to residences. Randolph is rooted in the idea of common authority and the Supreme Court has extended the principle of common authority well beyond residences.
You can access today’s Ninth Circuit ruling at this link.
Videotaping middle school students dressing and undressing in a school locker room is “wholly disproportionate to the claimed policy goal of assuring increased school security, especially when there is no history of any threat to security in the locker rooms”: Not to mention that the video was apparently capable of being accessed over the internet. More details can be found in this ruling that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued today.
