“Pakistan Leader Backs Down and Reinstates Top Judge”: This article will appear Monday in The New York Times.
The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Protesters savor victory in Pakistan; Government reinstates the chief justice as thousands defied a ban to head to Islamabad for an opposition rally.”
The Associated Press reports that “Pakistan to restore chief justice.”
Reuters reports that “Pakistan defuses crisis, agrees to restore top judge.”
And Bloomberg News reports that “Pakistan to Restore Supreme Court Justice, Bowing to Protesters.”
Programming note: This afternoon, I’ll be returning home from my very enjoyable visit to New Orleans. Additional posts will appear here this evening.
“Judge appointments are Obama’s chance to shape California courts; While campaigning, he emphasized bipartisanship and vowed to name judges with ’empathy’ and ‘heart’; How will those promises play out?” Carol J. Williams has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
“Kansas eager for abortion provider’s case to move forward; After a years-long drama involving activists, prosecutors and Dr. George Tiller, who faces charges stemming from late-term procedures, his trial is seen as an unfulfilling climax”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
“A Brewing Court Battle: Obama’s ambitious agenda will be scrutinized and second-guessed by conservative federal judges.” Michael Waldman will have this article in the March 23, 2009 issue of Newsweek.
“Top court ruling threatens to shake up N.J. elections; It clears way for GOP effort to redraw districts”: The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger today contains an article that begins, “On the eve of New Jersey’s legislative elections, the long-contested map setting the boundaries for the state’s voting districts may be challenged as unconstitutional in the wake of a controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision last week.”
“Ginsburg recounts career roadblocks; Says high court may soon have a new member”: This article appeared yesterday in The Boston Globe.
And The Boston Herald reported yesterday that “In Hub, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hints at Supreme vacancy.”
According to the popular “Today in History” feature from The Associated Press, today Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is celebrating her 76th birthday.
“2nd Circuit to Hear Appeal of Bail Denial for Madoff; Getting post-conviction bail for Madoff will be tough because the standards are much stricter”: law.com has this report.
“Implementing sex offender registration law may prove impossible”: The Providence (R.I.) Journal today contains this article about the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.
“Drugs v. Devices”: The New York Times today contains an editorial that begins, “Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that patients can sue drug companies in state courts for harm caused by medicines approved by the Food and Drug Administration, Congress ought to give patients the same right to sue makers of medical devices.”
“Souter, no fan of capital, seems at home in D.C.” Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.
“In City of Lawyers, Many Immigrants Fighting Deportation Go It Alone”: Yesterday’s edition of The New York Times contained an article that begins, “In the heart of Manhattan, amid one of the greatest concentrations of legal muscle in the world, hundreds of New York’s immigrant poor are locked up with no access to a lawyer as they fight deportation. Robert A. Katzmann, a federal judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, believes that fact alone should summon the city’s legal profession to do more volunteer work in the immigration court system, where no defendant has the right to a court-appointed lawyer, and some of the most vulnerable end up in the hands of fly-by-night operators who bungle cases wholesale.”
“Have the Eyes Had It? Is our eyewitness identification system sending innocents to jail?” Dahlia Lithwick will have this essay in the March 23, 2009 issue of Newsweek.
“Chief Justice John Roberts discusses Lincoln”: The Associated Press has this report from Moscow, Idaho.
“It starts with an ‘F’ and ends in two arrests; Users of profanity face charges in La Marque, Galveston”: This front page article appears today in The Houston Chronicle.
Do railroad crossings fit within the purview of “transportation by rail carriers” for purposes of express preemption under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act? In light of a conflict between its ruling and the ruling of the Supreme Court of North Dakota, this week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit entered an order granting rehearing en banc to reconsider the question. In July 2008, a unanimous three-judge Fifth Circuit panel ruled that express preemption applied.
“Appeals court to rehear ex-inmate’s $15M award”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court has agreed to rehear a case that resulted in a $15 million award to a former Louisiana death row inmate who was exonerated after 18 years in prison. In December 2008, a three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the jury’s award to John Thompson, 45, who was convicted in 1985 of killing hotel executive Raymond Liuzza Jr. but acquitted years later after a state appeals court ordered a new trial. In a decision Friday, the full court agreed to hear the case in response to a request by New Orleans District Leon Cannizzaro.”
And The Times-Picayune of New Orleans reports today that “Court gives DA’s office another chance; Former inmate’s judgment challenged.”
You can access Wednesday’s order (posted online yesterday) of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granting rehearing en banc at this link. The original three-judge panel’s unanimous ruling from December 2008 can be accessed here.
“Rethinking Original Intent: The debate over the Constitution’s meaning takes a surprising turn; a pivotal gun-rights case.” Jess Bravin has this article today in The Wall Street Journal.
“Court reverses convictions of sex offenders; The four men were convicted for failing to register as sex offenders after moving to Virginia”: Today’s edition of The Roanoke Times contains an article that begins, “Four Southwest Virginia sex offenders who challenged a national registration law had their convictions for failing to register overturned Friday by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The four men’s original convictions for various sex offenses were not affected by the appeals court’s decision. The ruling was based on a narrow issue of timing and did not reach deeper questions about the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.”
You can access yesterday’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at this link.
The F word, on appeal: A dissent that a judge serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued yesterday begins, “The panel majority has today overruled the Board and denied legal protection to an employee’s one-time use of profane language concerning a supervisor — referring to him as a ‘stupid fucking moron’ — in a private setting during intense labor negotiations.”
Second Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi to take senior status effective July 21, 2009: See here for confirmation (via “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times“). As of that date, he will have served for fifteen years as a federal appellate judge.
Today in New Orleans: On my second day here, I finally gave in to the temptation to visit the John Minor Wisdom U.S. Court of Appeals Building.
In addition to visiting the three courtrooms on the second floor — including the en banc courtroom containing seats for seventeen judges at the bench — I visited the court’s library, where the librarian in charge gave me a complimentary copy of “A History of the Fifth Circuit 1891-1981” by law professor Harvey C. Couch.
My wife took some interesting photos of the outside of the building, which I’ll try to post online after I return home.
This afternoon’s symposium event at Loyola Law School was much fun. It was great to finally meet both Jerry Goldman, founder of the amazing “Oyez” site, and Ernest Svenson of “Ernie the Attorney” fame.
It was also very interesting to hear professor Timothy R Johnson of the University of Minnesota speak about a project he is currently working on with two other professors to study how often each of the nine Justices serving on the U.S. Supreme Court interrupt, or get interrupted by, each other during oral argument. One of the study’s least surprising findings is that Justice Clarence Thomas isn’t doing much interrupting of his colleagues, nor is he being interrupted often by his colleagues, at oral argument.
“U.S. Abandons Detainee Label but Policy Is Largely Intact”: Saturday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an article that begins, “The Obama administration said Friday that it would abandon the Bush administration’s term ‘enemy combatant’ as it argues in court for the continued detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in a move that seemed intended to symbolically separate the new administration from Bush detention policies.”
Saturday’s edition of The Washington Post will report that “U.S. Retires ‘Enemy Combatant,’ Keeps Broad Right to Detain.”
The Associated Press reports that “Obama admin. to end use of term ‘enemy combatant.’”
James Rowley of Bloomberg News reports that “Obama Drops Enemy Combatant Term in Guantanamo Cases.”
Reuters reports that “U.S. drops ‘enemy combatant’ as basis for detention.”
At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “U.S. defines its claim to detention power.”
Today, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a news release titled “Department of Justice Withdraws ‘Enemy Combatant’ Definition for Guantanamo Detainees.” The news release links to the “Declaration of Attorney General Eric Holder” and a brief that the federal government filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
“Court stays out of Anna Nicole Smith case”: The AP has a report that begins, “Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has turned down a plea for help from the estate of Anna Nicole Smith in a fight over a Texas oil tycoon’s fortune.”
What a twit: The Associated Press has a report headlined “Appeal says juror sent ‘tweets’ during $12.6M case” that begins, “A building materials company and its owner have appealed a $12.6 million verdict against them, alleging that a juror posted messages on Twitter.com during the trial that show he’s biased against them.”
“Ginsburg: Possible court opening soon.” The Associated Press has this report.
“Staples libel ruling concerns news media groups; Truth not failsafe as defense in case”: Jonathan Saltzman has this article today in The Boston Globe.
Programming note: This afternoon, I’ll be a speaker at a Loyola Law Review symposium titled “On the Brink: The Judiciary’s Tug of War with Technology.” Should you happen to be in or near New Orleans, the event is open to the public and begins at 1 p.m. My panel is due to start at 4 p.m.
This morning, after grabbing breakfast at Stanley, we plan to visit the National World War II Museum and the Ogden Museum of Southern Art.
Additional posts will appear here at some point later today.
“U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts in Boise, praises western law schools”: This article appears today in The Idaho Statesman.
This afternoon, the Chief Justice will be delivering the Bellwood Lecture at the University of Idaho College of Law.
“New czar’s goal: Find nations for detainees; The Obama administration created a diplomatic post in an effort to convince countries to accept Guantanamo detainees.” Carol Rosenberg has this article today in The Miami Herald.
“How Obama Will Handle U.S. Attorney Posts Still Unclear”: The Washington Post contains this article today.
“Obama on Spot as Rulings Aid Gay Partners”: This article will appear Friday in The New York Times.
I linked to the rulings in this post from last month.
Don’t confuse a bottled salad dressing’s “best when purchased by” date for an “exipration” date or “sell by” date, Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner chides federal prosecutors: Older federal appellate judges aren’t necessarily bad, and neither is older salad dressing, especially when it’s “shelf stable” and thus has no expiration date.
In any event, if you’ve ever disagreed with your spouse over whether a food’s “best when purchased by” date is the equivalent of an “exipration” date or “sell by” date, Judge Posner seeks to provide the answer in this decision issued today.
“Justice Thomas Talks on Book, Life”: This post appears today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”
Which came first, the taking or the egg? In today’s ruling in Rose Acre Farms, Inc. v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit writes that “We must again decide whether the trial court correctly held that the government’s regulations, which restricted the sale of certain of Rose Acre’s eggs during the approximately two-year period, constituted a taking for which just compensation is due.”
