“Judge delays war-crimes trial for Supreme Court”: Today in The Miami Herald, Carol Rosenberg has an article that begins, “A military commissions judge Friday postponed the scheduled trial of Osama bin Laden’s driver until after the U.S. Supreme Court has decided another key detainee case.” You can access the ruling at this link.
The New York Times reports today that “Detainee’s Trial Delayed Until Justices Rule.”
The Associated Press reports that “US postpones first Guantanamo war crimes trial.”
And in The Los Angeles Times, Carol J. Williams reports that “Defenders of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, 4 others ask Guantanamo judge to dismiss charges; They say tribunal legal advisor Thomas Hartmann — who’s been barred from a case against Osama bin Laden’s driver — acted unfairly and illegally to get KSM and his alleged co-conspirators prosecuted.”
“Pa. Justices Hear Arguments Over ‘Control’ of Images in Child Porn Case; Authorities found the images in the cache file of man’s Web browser”: law.com provides this report.
I addressed this issue in the December 4, 2006 installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com, headlined “Just Looking: Should Internet Ignorance Be a Defense to Child Porn Charges?”
“Magisterial Conviction: Why the California Supreme Court did more than legalize gay marriage.” Law Professor Kenji Yoshino has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“35-year sentence for HIV-positive spitter worries some”: This article appears today in The Dallas Morning News.
“Michigan gays can wed in California; Bonds still won’t be valid here, but expect West Coast trips, state’s gay marriage backers say”: The Detroit News contains this article today.
“FBI agent denies bullying in Fieger case”: This article appears today in The Detroit Free Press.
And The Detroit News reports today that “FBI agent in Fieger case describes rare pre-raid talks.”
“Crown must justify adult sentences: ruling.” The Toronto Globe and Mail today contains an article that begins, “A fractured Supreme Court of Canada yesterday struck down a law forcing young offenders who are guilty of serious, violent offences to be sentenced as adults unless they can prove it would be unfair to them. The 5-4 ruling drew immediate condemnation from the federal government, with Justice Minister Rob Nicholson sounding a battle cry against soft treatment for young offenders.”
The Toronto Star reports today that “Supreme Court shakes youth act; Forcing violent teens to prove they should not face adult prison terms ruled unconstitutional.”
The Winnipeg Sun contains an article headlined “Court ruling ripper: Provinces, feds at odds over fighting youth crime.”
The Montreal Gazette reports that “Quebec rights commission delighted by high court ruling; Federal law didn’t respect rights charter, child justice advocates contend.”
The Canadian Press reports that “Top court declares reverse onus on youth sentencing unconstitutional.”
CBC News reports that “Top court rules Crown must prove convicted youth deserve adult punishment.”
Canwest News Service reports that “Top court snubs Tory youth crime agenda; Parts of law unconstitutional; Placed onus on some youths to convince judge why they shouldn’t be tried as adults.”
Retuers reports that “Canada must treat young killers gently, court says.”
And online at National Post, Colby Cosh has an essay entitled “The Supreme Court’s young-offender decision: All bets are off for journalists.”
You can access yesterday’s 5-4 ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada at this link.
“Same-Sex Marriage and Racial Justice Find Common Ground”: Adam Liptak has this news analysis today in The New York Times.
The Los Angeles Times today contains an article headlined “In Massachusetts, a test run for same-sex marriage; Many in the state welcome California’s Supreme Court ruling this week.”
And The San Francisco Chronicle contains articles headlined “Governor backs same-sex marriage ruling“; “Whipsawed gay couples brace for legal twists“; and “County clerks, same-sex couples try to plan.”
“FBI agent tells Fieger trial of failed sting; Law partner didn’t incriminate himself in phone call taped for donor funds probe, witness testifies”: This article appears today in The Detroit News.
And The Detroit Free Press reports today that “Recorded call could hurt case; Effort on FBI’s behalf to trap defendant fails.”
“Court sides with MySpace in suit over sex assault”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Federal law gives MySpace.com immunity from a lawsuit over the alleged sexual assault of a teenage girl by a man she met on the social networking Web site, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.”
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Doe v. MySpace Inc at this link. Footnote one of today’s ruling helpfully explains that “The term ‘blog’ is a portmanteau of ‘Web log’ and is a term referring to an online journal or diary.”
On February 14, 2007, I had this post collecting coverage of the federal district court’s ruling that dismissed the lawsuit.
Books recently received in the mail: In today’s mail, I received a copy of Benjamin Wittes‘s forthcoming book, “Law and the Long War: The Future of Justice in the Age of Terror.” It is scheduled to go on sale on June 19, 2008.
Earlier this week, I received a copy of “Some Joys of Lawyering,” by Bennett Boskey. The book is published by The Green Bag Press.
And recently I received a copy of “Federal Appellate Practice and Procedure in a Nutshell” by Gregory A. Castanias and Robert H. Klonoff.
“Attorneys want full appeal heard; The ex-Qwest CEO’s lawyers say if the court proceeds, its review shouldn’t be limited”: The Denver Post today contains an article that begins, “Former Qwest chief executive Joe Nacchio, convicted of insider trading last year, should be allowed to present his entire appeal anew if a federal appellate court grants a government petition to rehear a portion of the case, his attorneys argue in papers filed Thursday.”
“Chief Judge Michel Speaks on the State of the Court”: Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held its judicial conference in Washington, D.C. You can view the program at this link. Chief Judge Paul R. Michel delivered these remarks at the start of yesterday’s program.
According to Chief Judge Michel’s remarks, Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner will sit by designation with the Federal Circuit in April 2009. And Chief Judge Michel has asked Congress to authorize the hiring of a fourth law clerk for all active Federal Circuit judges, which is already the norm in the other U.S. Courts of Appeals.
“Please, Somebody Sell Justice Scalia Some Stock”: Bloomberg News columnist Ann Woolner has this essay today.
“Torture’s Blowback: An alleged Sept. 11 conspirator can’t be tried because the administration thought harsh tactics were a good idea.” This editorial appears today in The Washington Post.
“Judge Sides With Red Cross Over Trademark”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “A decision by Johnson & Johnson, the giant health care conglomerate, to sue the American Red Cross last year for commercializing the Red Cross symbol may be turning into a bit of a disaster for the company. This week the company lost the second round in its trademark dispute against the disaster relief agency when a federal judge in Manhattan threw out most of the case.”
I have posted online at this link Wednesday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
“Justices focus on scope of lead paint case”: The Providence (R.I.) Journal contains this article today.
“Judge again rejects foes of Barnes move”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.
And Bloomberg News reports that “Barnes Foundation Wins Ruling for Plan to Move to Philadelphia.”
“Posner Sees Need for More ‘Candid’ U.S. Supreme Court”: Bloomberg News recently posted online this mp3 podcast (9.11MB mp3 audio file) of an interview with Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner. According to Bloomberg’s description of the interview, “U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Posner talks with Bloomberg’s Tom Keene from Chicago about his new book, ‘How Judges Think,’ the U.S. Supreme Court, and the impact of ethanol production on food supply and prices.”
“Inmate appeals on lethal injection; He asks court to allow his lawsuit on how Va. performs executions”: The Richmond Times-Dispatch today contains an article that begins, “Death-row inmate Christopher Scott Emmett asked the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday to restore his lawsuit challenging the way Virginia conducts lethal injections.”
And The Washington Post reports today that “Lethal Injection Methods Weighed; U.S. Appeals Court Ruling Could Have Nationwide Effect.”
“Solicitor General Clement Says He Will Step Down”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post.
And David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Solicitor general to step down; Paul Clement, who will leave in June, defended Guantanamo policies before the high court.”
“West Virginia’s Top Judge Loses His Re-election Bid”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
My most recent earlier coverage appears at this link.
“California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage”: Adam Liptak will have this article Friday in The New York Times.
Tomorrow’s newspaper will also contain a news analysis headlined “Marriage Ruling Vaults Issue Back to Stage in Presidential Bids.”
In jurisprudence essays available online at Slate: Dahlia Lithwick has an essay entitled “Who You Calling Activist? California’s gay-marriage decision reflects the difference between judicial activism and, um, judging.”
And Emily Bazelon has an essay entitled “Race to the Altar: California’s gay couples should marry fast. Voters could overturn the Supreme Court ruling in November.”
“Nacchio urges denial of full court review”: The Rocky Mountain News provides this update.
And The Associated Press reports that “Nacchio asks court to deny full appellate review.”
You can access at this link Appellant’s Opposition to the Petition for Rehearing En Banc, which counsel for Joseph P. Nacchio filed today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
“Appeals court upholds pretrial ruling in Libby asbestos case”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy didn’t abuse his discretion when he required the government to produce a pretrial list of witnesses and evidentiary documents in its asbestos case against W.R. Grace & Co., a federal appeals court has ruled.”
You can access at this link today’s en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
“Court throws out suit to stop Barnes move”: The Philadelphia Inquirer provides a news update that begins, “A Montgomery County judge has dismissed a suit by the Friends of the Barnes Foundation seeking to hold hearings on the famed museum’s planned move to Philadelphia.”
“Senate Panel Approves Judgeships Bill”: At his “Washington Briefs” blog, Lawrence Hurley of The Daily Journal of California has a post that begins, “This morning the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 14-5 to approve a bill that would create dozens of new federal judgeships for the first time since 1990. The bill would add 38 district court judgeships and 12 circuit court judgeships.”
“Racial hate letter writer in Ohio pleads guilty”: The Associated Press provides this report.
And The Cleveland Plain Dealer provides a news update headlined “Pepper Pike man admits making racial threats.”
“California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.
“California ban on same-sex marriage struck down”: Bill Mears of CNN.com provides this report.
Reuters reports that “Top California court backs gay marriage.”
Bloomberg News reports that “California Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage.”
Greg Moran of The San Diego Union-Tribune has a news update headlined “State ban on gay marriage overturned.”
And Josh Richman of The Oakland Tribune has a news update headlined “Court overturns same-sex marriage ban.”
BREAKING NEWS — Supreme Court of California holds in In re Marriage Cases that “to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.”: You can access today’s 4-3 ruling by California’s highest court at this link. I have posted a back-up copy of the 172-page decision on this blog’s servers at this link.
Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote the majority opinion, in which Associate Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, and Carlos R. Moreno joined.
Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter‘s concurring and dissenting opinion begins, “The majority opinion reflects considerable research, thought, and effort on a significant and sensitive case, and I actually agree with several of the majority’s conclusions. However, I cannot join the majority’s holding that the California Constitution gives same-sex couples a right to marry. In reaching this decision, I believe, the majority violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error.” Associate Justice Ming W. Chin joined in Justice Baxter’s opinion. Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan also dissented from the majority’s judgment, although she expressed her agreement with the majority’s outcome as a matter of personal preference.
In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban.”
Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “State Supreme Court says same-sex couples have right to marry.”
Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times reports that “California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban.”
Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “California Supreme Court overturns ban on gay marriage.”
And The Sacramento Bee reports that “Gay marriage legal in California, court declares.”
“Al-Marri’s new challenge to detention”: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post that begins, “In a new phase of the continuing controversy over destruction of government recordings showing harsh interrogation tactics used on detainees, attorneys for a Qatari national argued in a federal appeals court filing Wednesday that new evidence shows he is being wrongly held.”
At least no one is contending that Donald Trump’s hairstyle infringes any copyrights: Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision affirming the grant of summary judgment against a plaintiff who alleged that the Trump Palace and the Trump Royale high-rise condominiums in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida infringed the plaintiff’s copyrighted architectural designs. The final two pages of the PDF file containing the opinion consist of images of the plaintiff’s design and the Trump Palace building.
Fourth Circuit affirms punitive damages award that is eighty times larger than compensatory damages award: When seeking to uphold a punitive damages award that bears an 80:1 ratio to the compensatory damages award, it never hurts that the total award of punitive damages is just $80,000 or that the defendant has a net worth of $3.2 billion. You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at this link.
