Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro reports that “Supreme Court Upholds Delaware’s Veto Power Over British Petroleum Project; High court appointed a special master to sift through thousands of documents and hear arguments from both sides.”
Marcia Coyle reports that “Federal Circuit May Be in for Big Changes; A startling two-thirds of the court soon to be eligible for senior status.”
And in other news, “State AG Attacks Business Method at Center of Key Patent Case.”
Can you dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc if you’re a senior status circuit judge who thus can’t vote in favor of rehearing en banc? Apparently the answer is “yes” in the Sixth Circuit, as evidenced by the senior status of the author of this dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc issued today. Thus, although a total of six judges join in the dissent, it only equates to five votes in favor of rehearing en banc.
You can access the ruling of the original divided three-judge Sixth Circuit panel at this link. I had this post about that decision on the day it issued.
“In the wake of September 11th, some Muslim Americans, completely innocent of any wrongdoing, became targets of gross misapprehensions and overbroad assumptions about their religious beliefs. But the event that shook the foundations of our buildings did not shake the premise of our founding — that here, in America, there is no heretical faith.” So writes Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in an opinion issued today.
“Forever Guantanamo”: Raymond Bonner has this review of four Guantanamo-related books in the April 17, 2008 issue of The New York Review of Books.
“U.S. Supreme Court agrees to take Pleasant Grove-Summum free speech case”: Pamela Manson of The Salt Lake Tribune provides this news update.
Tuesday in The Christian Science Monitor, Warren Richey will have an article headlined “U.S. Supreme Court takes a new 10 Commandments case; The Decalogue is on display in a public park in Utah; Is the park, therefore, a forum for expression of all types?”
James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Court to rule on city park’s religious monument.”
And Pete Yost of The Associated Press reports that “Court Agrees to Take 2 Free Speech Cases.”
This blog’s first coverage of the dispute over whether towns in Utah that displayed on public property a monument to the Ten Commandments also had to permit the display on public property of a monument to the Seven Principles of the Summum religion appeared in a post I published at “How Appealing” on July 19, 2002. I also noted in that post that “Adherents of the Summum faith, at least according to the group’s official Web site, are heavily into mummification after death and also take quite a liking to masturbation while still among the living.”
You can access today’s U.S. Supreme Court Order List at this link.
“Supreme Court says Del. can block LNG project ; BP hopes to push on”: The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware provides this news update.
Tuesday in The Christian Science Monitor, Warren Richey will have an article headlined “Supreme Court upholds Delaware border claim; Ruling 6 to 2, the justices say New Jersey has no right to build a liquefied natural gas plant with a Delaware River pier.”
The Associated Press reports that “Delaware Wins High Court Fight Over NJ.”
And Reuters provides a report headlined “US high court: Delaware can block BP LNG terminal.”
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in New Jersey v. Delaware, No.134, Orig., at this link.
What’s new? On Monday through Thursday of last week, and again today, I was attending the trial of a civil case in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Camden. In November 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a decision on an appeal in which I represented the plaintiff-appellant. The Third Circuit’s ruling reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment against the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim and remanded that claim for trial.
The trial took place last week and concluded today with a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff on all issues, awarding to the plaintiff all of the damages that the plaintiff had sought. I was attending the trial at the plaintiff’s request to ensure that the plaintiff took all necessary steps during trial to preserve its appellate rights. Thanks to the great work of plaintiff’s trial counsel — David Sokasits, Esquire — it is now the defendant that is facing the need to file any post-judgment motions and any appeal.
Also today, I filed this Reply Brief for Appellants in the Third Circuit in a separate case that I previously mentioned in this post from January 2008. The opening Brief for Appellants in that case can be accessed here.
Programming note: I will again be in court today on a client matter. Additional posts will appear here later today. “SCOTUSblog” will provide timely coverage of today’s U.S. Supreme Court Order List and any opinions that the Court issues today.
“Wounded vet loses libel appeal against Moore”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.
My earlier coverage of this recent First Circuit ruling appears at this link.
“Judge Elizabeth Halverson courts trouble in Las Vegas; Her ex-bailiff, for example, has testified that she treated him like a houseboy; She has been suspended; an April hearing could remove her permanently”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
“A Day in Court Denied”: Today in The Washington Post, Harold Hongju Koh, dean of Yale Law School, has an op-ed that begins, “Last week, the Supreme Court heard a case from Shawqi Omar and Mohammad Munaf, two American citizens held in a U.S. prison for more than three years without access to lawyers or judges.”
“The Vienna Convention: The U.S. must ensure that arrested foreigners can contact their consulates.” This editorial appears today in The Washington Post.
“Enron’s Skilling Attempts to Reverse His Guilty Verdict”: Today in The Wall Street Journal, John R. Emshwiller has an article that begins, “More than a year after U.S. prosecutors put former Enron Corp. president Jeffrey Skilling behind bars for his part in the iconic corporate scandal of the last decade, a court this week will weigh the possibility of overturning the government’s only unalloyed courtroom victory in its nearly five-year Enron probe.”
“The Fight Over ‘Fleeting Expletives’: How A Grant of Supreme Court Review May Lead to Expanded FCC Power and Reduced First Amendment Rights for Broadcasters.” Julie Hilden has this essay online today at FindLaw.
“Congress’ first task: FISA; When Congress reconvenes, it needs to act quickly on new terrorist surveillance legislation.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
“Debate and Protest at Spy Program’s Inception”: Eric Lichtblau has this article today in The New York Times.
Steven Brill reviews John Grisham’s new book, “The Appeal”: The review appears in today’s issue of the Sunday Book Review of The New York Times.
“Fed Rules Claim to Pre-Empt Injury Suits”: The Associated Press provides this report.
“My Way or the Highway”: This editorial about President Bush’s nomination of Steven Bradbury to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel appears today in The New York Times.
The nation’s first DNA-based “John Doe” warrants were illegal, the Supreme Court of Kansas has ruled: Yesterday’s edition of The Wichita Eagle contained an article headlined “Court quashes 1st DNA-based rape warrants” that begins, “The Kansas Supreme Court ruled Friday that the arrest warrants in seven rape cases — the first in the nation to charge someone’s DNA with a crime — weren’t specific enough to meet legal standards. The ruling means death-row inmate Douglas Belt won’t be tried for the rapes.”
And The McPherson Sentinel reported yesterday that “Kaufman finds good and bad news in John Doe rulings.”
You can access at this link Friday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Kansas.
“Same-sex marriages gain support”: The Des Moines Register yesterday contained an article that begins, “A new flock of same-sex marriage supporters jumped into Iowa’s constitutional battle over gay rights Friday with legal briefs they hope will influence the Iowa Supreme Court.”
“High court: Privacy extends to airspace above homes.” Yesterday’s edition of The Rutland Herald contained an article that begins, “The Vermont Supreme Court held Friday that ‘Vermont citizens have a constitutional right to privacy that ascends into the airspace above their homes and property,’ overturning the conviction of a Goshen man on marijuana charges. The court ruled that the aerial surveillance of Stephen Bryant’s land constituted a search under Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution and, as such, required a warrant.”
You can access Friday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Vermont at this link.
“Profanity, sex, violence: What’s appropriate on TV?” Columnist Gail Pennington has this op-ed today in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
“Activist involved in landmark Supreme Court speech rights case dies”: Today’s edition of The Columbia Missourian contains an article that begins, “Lorena Jeanne Tinker, a peace and civil rights activist, made it her mission to change what she could and chronicle what she couldn’t.”
You can access the U.S. Supreme Court‘s ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District via this link.
“Medellin v. Texas: A case of more than murder.” Ted Cruz, the Solicitor General of Texas, has this op-ed in The Houston Chronicle.
“Brothers file claim in S.F. zoo tiger attack”: The San Francisco Chronicle provides this news update. The newspaper has posted a copy of the claim online at this link.
“More Flimflam on Warming”: The New York Times today contains an editorial that begins, “On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act clearly empowered the Environmental Protection Agency to address greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks.”
“Freed Ex-Governor of Alabama Talks of Abuse of Power”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
And The Birmingham News reports today that “Siegelman rejoins family after 9 months; Balloons welcome ex-governor who wore prison garb.”
“Ruling Gives Heirs a Share of Superman Copyright”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “Time Warner is no longer the sole proprietor of Superman. A federal judge here on Wednesday ruled that the heirs of Jerome Siegel — who 70 years ago sold the rights to the action hero he created with Joseph Shuster to Detective Comics for $130 — were entitled to claim a share of the United States copyright to the character.”
I have posted online at this link Wednesday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
“Asking a Judge to Save the World, and Maybe a Whole Lot More”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
Available online from law.com: An article reports that “9th Circuit Panel Sounds Ready to OK Logging Plan.”
And in other news, “Pa. Supreme Court Agrees Again to Hear Appeal Over H&R Block Refund Program.”
“Dog owners have responsibility to stop attacks, court says; Ruling against dog owner whose pets injured a visitor”: Today in The Austin American-Statesman, Chuck Lindell has an article that begins, “Texas’ ‘first free bite’ rule — allowing dog owners to escape most legal liability if a previously gentle dog attacks — does not free owners from the responsibility of stopping an attack once it begins, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday.”
You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Texas at this link.
“Final defendant in 2003 smuggling deaths set to plead”: The Houston Chronicle today contains an article that begins, “The Mexican citizen whose extradition to the United States last year made him the final defendant in the nation’s worst human smuggling tragedy is set to plead guilty next month.”
“Appeals court upholds Austin smoking ban; Enforcement can shift from individuals back to businesses, city officials say”: This article appears today in The Austin American-Statesman.
My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Fifth Circuit ruling appears at this link.
“Salazar to size up judge; Complaints spur look at Nottingham conduct”: The Denver Post today contains an article that begins, “U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar said Thursday that he is concerned about reports that U.S. District Chief Judge Edward Nottingham Jr. engaged in immoral conduct and wants to investigate further to determine whether sanctions are necessary.”
And The Rocky Mountain News reports today that “Salazar compares Nottingham’s conduct with Spitzer’s.”
