“Supreme Court rules Internet user has right to privacy”: The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger provides a news update that begins, “The state Supreme Court ruled today that under the New Jersey Constitution an Internet user has the right to privacy in the subscriber information maintained by the individual’s Internet service provider.”
And The Associated Press reports that “NJ court requires subpoena for Internet subscriber records.”
You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of New Jersey at this link.
Access online the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc., No. 07-552: The Court has posted it at this link.
Update: The Court has now also posted online at this link the transcript of today’s oral argument in Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, No. 07-474.
“NBC game show may prevail despite couple’s lawsuit; Georgia Supreme Court says ‘Deal or No Deal’ is not illegal gambling”: Bill Rankin of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution provides this news update.
And The Associated Press reports that “Court throws out lawsuit challenging NBC’s ‘Deal or No Deal.’”
You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia at this link.
Ninth Circuit reinstates putative class action alleging that Gerber Products Company deceptively marketed its “Fruit Juice Snacks” as healthy for children: You can access today’s ruling at this link. The district court, in a ruling that the Ninth Circuit has reversed today, had granted Gerber’s motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim.
“We must decide whether customs officers at Los Angeles International Airport may examine the electronic contents of a passenger’s laptop computer without reasonable suspicion.” So begins the opinion that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.
Based on that examination, the passenger was later charged with possessing and transporting child pornography. U.S. District Judge Dean D. Pregerson, however, granted the passenger’s motion to suppress the evidence discovered during the examination of the laptop.
Today’s Ninth Circuit ruling describes the passenger’s arguments on appeal as follows:
Arnold argues that the district court was correct in concluding that reasonable suspicion was required to search his laptop at the border because it is distinguishable from other containers of documents based on its ability to store greater amounts of information and its unique role in modern life.
Arnold argues that “laptop computers are fundamentally different from traditional closed containers,” and analogizes them to “homes” and the “human mind.” Arnold’s analogy of a laptop to a home is based on his conclusion that a laptop’s capacity allows for the storage of personal documents in an amount equivalent to that stored in one’s home. He argues that a laptop is like the “human mind” because of its ability to record ideas, e-mail, internet chats and web-surfing habits.
Despite the creativity of these arguments, today’s Ninth Circuit ruling reverses the district court’s suppression order, thereby paving the way for the child pornography prosecution to go forward.
“Court lifts stays of execution for 3 death row inmates”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press provides this report.
“Court to hear anti-dumping, sentencing cases”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
You can access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.
“Which came first: memos or torture? John Yoo’s legal opinions and questions about culpability and timing.” Scott Horton has this op-ed today in The Los Angeles Times.
“Guantanamo commute is a real trial; For the lawyers and others involved in the war crimes tribunal, getting there and back is increasingly difficult”: Carol J. Williams has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
“Justices to Hear Challenge of Law That Affects Self-Funded Candidates”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post.
“From DNA of Family, a Tool to Make Arrests; Privacy Advocates Say the Emerging Practice Turns Relatives Into Genetic Informants”: The Washington Post contains this front page article today.
“Few Clear Wins in U.S. Anti-Terror Cases; Moving Early on Domestic Suspects Often Does Not Bring Convictions”: This front page article appears today in The Washington Post.
“States of Nature: How George Bush’s legal war against the environment backfired.” Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen has this essay online at The New Republic.
“White House challenges release of visitor logs”: The Associated Press provides this report on a case scheduled for argument today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
“Can murder victim’s statements be used at trial?” Mark Sherman of The Associated Press provides this report.
And Law Professor Richard D. Friedman — author of “The Confrontation Blog” — has a preview of the case headlined “Does an Accused Forfeit the Confrontation Right by Murdering a Witness, Absent a Purpose to Render Her Unavailable?”
“Millionaires’ Amendment: The Supreme Court should uphold Congress’s modest effort to help candidates who rely on outside contributions get their messages out to the voters.” This editorial appears today in The New York Times.
“Fieger legal team a dream; Big-time criminal attorneys known for winning high-profile cases across nation”: David Ashenfelter has this article today in The Detroit Free Press.
“Neither side relishing retrial in Wecht case”: This article appeared yesterday in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
“Porteous defense says dissenting judges don’t believe punishment fits the crime”: One week ago today, The Times-Picayune of New Orleans published an article that begins, “The transcripts and legal opinions locked away in the judicial complaint file of U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous are so ultra-secret that not even the embattled jurist can share the documents shielded from public view by a policy designed to protect him. When the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal recommended Porteous for impeachment in December, it released six pages describing in broad strokes the charges against him. It did not, however, allow the public to read a nearly 50-page dissent written by four judges who heard the same evidence but didn’t consider the misdeeds worthy of the judiciary’s ultimate punishment for misconduct on the bench. The 5th Circuit does not acknowledge that the dissent exists, but Porteous’ newly hired defense team said the document contains critical arguments that it wishes it could make public.”
“How the Supreme Court’s Lethal Injection Ruling Elevates Appearances Over Reality”: Michael C. Dorf has this essay online today at FindLaw.
“State Secrets: A government misstep in a wiretapping case.” Patrick Radden Keefe has this article in the April 28, 2008 issue of The New Yorker.
