“Florida Supreme Court strikes down ‘false light’ suits”: The Tallahassee Democrat provides a news update that begins, “The Florida Supreme Court today said newspapers can’t be sued for putting people in a ‘false light’ with their reporting. The court, deciding two cases, said the cause of action does not exist under Florida law. It’s a victory for the news media, protecting against suits brought against reports that were factually true but could put the subjects in a false light. The court said other ways to sue, for defamation and libel, are available to plaintiffs.”
The cases in which the Supreme Court of Florida issued decisions on this subject today are Anderson v. Gannett Co. and Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp.
En banc Ninth Circuit examines what limits the Fourth Amendment places on governmental searches of FedEx packages addressed for delivery outside of the United States: You can access at this link today’s ruling of an eleven-judge en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski was the lone dissenter from today’s en banc ruling, which upheld the search at issue. His dissenting opinion concludes:
The previously “narrow” border search exception, United States v. Sutter, 340 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2003), is now a gaping hole. Every envelope containing birthday cards or trade secrets, every e-mail, every diary, every laptop that crosses the border can be opened and its contents read by government agents, without a warrant or even founded suspicion. Worse yet, by treating these seizures as a trivial annoyance rather than a major intrusion into our freedom of thought, my colleagues open the door for police across the United States to read whatever private papers fall into their hands. This is the power the English government claimed in the Wilkes affair; the power that so outraged the colonists; the power the Fourth Amendment was built to shield us against. We sell this birthright very cheaply today.
My earlier coverage of this case appeared in this post from January 2008 after the Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc. The original three-judge panel’s ruling can be accessed here.
“Visiting appeals judges hear case on Pa. judges’ raises”: The Philadelphia Inquirer today contains an article that begins, “Three visiting federal appeals court judges heard oral arguments yesterday on whether to reopen a case filed by the League of Women Voters that challenges how state judges were granted a raise in 2005, one that hiked the average salary for some judges by $40,000.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Court weighs government pay raise suit; Panel focusing on whether litigants have the right to sue state.”
“How Alex Kozinski Kept Patent Case Real”: Earlier this week, CalLaw.com’s “Legal Pad” blog had this post introducing an article headlined “IP Team Fights 8 Years to Victory.”
“Judge Kozinski: The First Amendment Is Dead.” Dave Hoffman had this post Monday evening at the blog “Concurring Opinions.
“Rehnquist papers donated to Hoover archives”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.
“Most California voters still oppose gay-marriage ban, poll finds; But the survey says support for Proposition 8 has risen; The results contradict polls taken by both sides of the campaign”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
And The San Francisco Chronicle reports today that “Margin shrinks in defeat of gay marriage ban.”
“Measure to tell parents of abortion holds lead”: Today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle contains an article that begins, “A California proposition calling for parental notification before an abortion can be performed on a minor is holding on to a slight edge among voters, although a large number of those surveyed say they haven’t made up their mind, according to a new poll.”
And The Los Angeles Times today contains an editorial entitled “No on Proposition 4: The parental notification measure is virtually the same as two previous anti-abortion measures that failed.”
“Former judge’s trial in insurance fraud begins”: Today in The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Jason Cato has an article that begins, “A former state appeals court judge duped insurance companies out of nearly a half-million dollars because he was broke and needed to settle a debt with a former fiancee, prosecutors told a federal jury Wednesday. A lawyer for Michael T. Joyce, who resigned from the Superior Court last year after being indicted on multiple counts of mail fraud and money laundering, countered with claims that the U.S. Attorney’s Office built its case on the words of ‘a vicious, jilted woman,’ Erie architect Shelane Buehler.”
Today in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Paula Reed Ward reports that “Ex-judge’s lawyer says trial a ‘witch hunt.’”
And The Erie (Pa.) Times-News contains an article headlined “Fraud or vendetta?”
“Ex-Judge Back in Court Over His Truant Trousers”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “Roy L. Pearson Jr. was back in court yesterday, trying to revive his highly publicized $54 million lawsuit against a neighborhood dry cleaners over a pair of lost pants.”
“U.S. Pressed to Turn Over Detainee Papers; British Court Blasts Inaction, Says Documents Are Vital to Guantanamo Case”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.
“Complaint still hangs over judge”: Today’s edition of The Rocky Mountain News contains an article that begins, “A piece of U.S. District Court Judge Edward Nottingham’s legal troubles is still unresolved before a state ethics panel, despite his resignation from the bench. Nottingham stepped down Tuesday amid allegations of judicial misconduct involving a prostitute. The allegations were being investigated by the 10th Circuit Court Judicial Council. A Minnesota man who has tangled with Nottingham in a federal court case filed the same charges last April with the state’s Attorney Regulation Council, which investigates ethical complaints against lawyers. A negative ruling by that panel could be a roadblock if Nottingham decides to resume practicing law in Colorado. Sean Harrington said he made the complaint because the state panel is supposed to protect the public from bad lawyers.” Harrington. who is not an attorney, has closely monitored the events leading to Judge Nottingham’s resignation at Harrington’s web site, KnowYourCourts.com.
And The Denver Post today contains an editorial entitled “Wise decision to leave bench: Despite his sharp legal mind and work ethic, Judge Edward W. Nottingham’s reputation and integrity have suffered too much.”
“Making Punishments Fit the Most Offensive Crimes; Societal Revulsion at Child-Pornography Consumers Has Led to Stiff Prison Sentences — and Caused Some Judges to Rebel”: Amir Efrati has this article today in The Wall Street Journal.
“Roe vs. Wade? Bush vs. Gore? What are the worst Supreme Court decisions? Sarah Palin may have been stumped by the question, but conservative and liberal legal experts weren’t.” David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
“For divided high court, two potential legacies”: Joan Biskupic has this article today in USA Today. The article also features a sidebar listing potential nominees.
In commentary available online from FindLaw: Michael C. Dorf has an essay entitled “The Supreme Court Puts Ideology Aside in Deciding a Small But Important Ohio Election Case that Could Affect the 2008 Presidential Election.”
And Anthony J. Sebok has an essay entitled “Judge Jack Weinstein’s Ruling Barring the Use of Race in Calculating the Expected Lifespan of a Man Seeking Tort Damages: An Isolated Decision, or the Beginning of a Legal Revolution?”
“U.S. itching for trademark fight — with West Coast biker gang”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers has this report.
“Ruling in ’64 Miss. crime could affect other cases”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Federal prosecutors have identified 22 current investigations into civil rights-era crimes that could be impacted by a federal appeals court’s decision to overturn a conviction in a 1964 kidnapping case.”
“Defense: Joyce investigation caused by ‘jilted’ ex-fiancee.” The Erie (Pa.) Times-News provides an update that begins, “The lead lawyer for former state Superior Court Judge Michael T. Joyce told a jury today that Joyce was indeed injured in an automobile accident in 2001, and he said Joyce is now the victim of a ‘vindictive, vicious, jilted’ ex-fiancee.”
Paula Reed Ward of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a news update headlined “Feds open insurance fraud trial against Pa. ex-judge.”
And The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Prosecutor: Ex-Pa. judge lied to collect insurance.”
“Papers of Late U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist Donated to Hoover Institution”: The Hoover Institution issued this news release today.
“D.C. Court of Appeals Hears Multimillion-Dollar Pants Lawsuit”: “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times” offers this post-argument report.
The Washington Post provides a news update headlined “Judge Seeks to Revive $54M Pants Lawsuit.”
And The Associated Press provides an updated report headlined “Missing pants case returns to DC court.”
“How green is the high court? Five cases put environmental laws to the test.” Marcia Coyle has this article in this week’s issue of The National Law Journal.
“Shame on Dennis Jacobs”: In the October 27, 2008 issue of The National Law Journal, Dean Erwin Chemerinsky will have an op-ed that begins, “Dennis Jacobs, the chief judge of the 2d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, should be ashamed of himself. In a speech in Rochester, N.Y., on Oct. 6, it was reported that he ridiculed lawyers who do pro bono work. He said that pro bono work is an ‘anti-social’ and self-serving activity that law firms use to recruit and ‘give solace’ to associates and that nonprofits use to further a political agenda.”
Update: A response from the Second Circuit’s chief judge appears at the outset of this post at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog.”
It took two judges to write these federal appellate court rulings: Jointly issued opinions appear to be this week’s hot new development at the federal appellate level.
Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an eleven-page unanimous en banc ruling that was jointly written by two federal appellate judges.
And today a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a thirteen-page unanimous ruling that was jointly written by two federal appellate judges.
The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “UK court postpones ruling on Guantanamo detainee” and “$54 million missing pants lawsuit back in DC court.”
“Some Rehnquist Papers Will Be Made Public Soon”: At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post that begins, “The family of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist has decided to donate his extensive papers from 33 years on the Supreme Court and before to the Hoover Institution Archives at Stanford University, Rehnquist’s alma mater. Hoover is expected to announce the acquisition later today, Legal Times has learned, and will make some of the documents available within weeks.”
Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro reports that “Former Blogger Makes High Court Debut.”
And in other news, “En Banc 11th Circuit Case Tests Mail Fraud Law; On an issue that has split circuit courts, DOJ sends top criminal appeals lawyer to argue in rare en banc session.” Although it’s true that the federal government was represented at oral argument by Deputy Solicitor General Michael R. Dreeben, I have no doubt that the defendants’ case was capably presented by Philadelphia-area appellate lawyer Peter Goldberger.
“New president may reshape high court”: Linda K. Carroll has this op-ed today in The Rocky Mountain News.
“Judge Nottingham quits amid inquiry; He faced possible impeachment in misconduct case”: This article appears today in The Rocky Mountain News.
And The Denver Post today contains articles headlined “Nottingham resigns amid probe” and “Nottingham: A thoughtful judge and an exacting jurist; Appointed to the bench by the first President Bush, Edward Nottingham is widely respected for his dedication.”
“Trial begins today for retired Pa. judge; Ex-jurist from Erie charged with fraud”: Today in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Paula Reed Ward has an article that begins, “Opening statements in the criminal fraud case against former state Superior Court Judge Michael T. Joyce are expected to be made today in federal court following a short interruption in jury selection yesterday. Mr. Joyce, a retired judge from Erie, is charged with nine separate counts of mail fraud and money laundering stemming from two insurance claims he filed after a low-speed accident in 2001, in which his new Mercedes-Benz was rear-ended at an estimated speed of 5 mph.”
Today in The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Jason Cato reports that “Picks on Joyce jury to be public.”
And The Erie (Pa.) Times-News reports that “Jury to be seated today; Lawyers to make opening statements in Joyce trial.”
“Guns, abortion and the Supreme Court: Scalia’s opinion on gun ownership is criticized as judicial activism by two prominent conservative judges.” The Los Angeles Times contains this editorial today.
“Immigrants’ advocates decry cervical cancer vaccine order; Gardasil, recommended for young female residents, is required for their immigrant counterparts; Its cost and safety questions raise concerns”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
“UM film presents struggle between law and fear”: Today’s edition of The Baltimore Sun contains an article that begins, “In the spring of 2006, sitting in a class at the University of Maryland law school, Sig Libowitz lit up when his professor distributed transcripts from the military tribunals that decided cases of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. To Libowitz, the transcripts seemed like a Kafkaesque nightmare in which detainees could be held indefinitely, not knowing the evidence against them. They also seemed like a movie.”
“Pentagon dismisses terror charges for 5 Guantanamo detainees; After another shake-up at the Pentagon office overseeing the war court, the administration withdrew, for now, war crimes charges against five men at Guantanamo”: Carol Rosenberg has this article today in The Miami Herald.
The New York Times reports today that “U.S. Drops Charges for 5 Guantanamo Detainees.”
The Washington Post reports that “Charges Against 5 Detainees Dropped Temporarily; Chief Guantanamo Prosecutor Denies That Flap Over Evidence Played Role.”
Carol J. Williams of The Los Angeles Times reports that “U.S. drops charges against 5 terrorism suspects; The men will remain imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay; Defense lawyers see the move as a way to give prosecutors more time to prepare for trial after the resignation of a key prosecutor.”
And Bloomberg News reports that “Gates Says Guantanamo Closure Needs Congress’s Action.”
“Required View: Oklahoma’s gallingly paternalistic ultrasound law.” Emily Bazelon has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
