“Perverting Justice: Jessica’s Law prevents paroled sex offenders from residing near schools or parks; That means they can only live one place in S.F. — on the streets.” SF Weekly published this article in late December 2009.
Tomorrow, as noted at this link, the Supreme Court of California is scheduled to issue a ruling on whether certain individuals are entitled to relief from the residency restrictions imposed on persons required to register as sex offenders.
And in this past Thursday’s edition of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Paula Reed Ward reported that “Ordinance limiting where sex offenders can live heads to state Supreme Court.”
“Site for Terror Trial Isn’t Only Obstacle”: This article appears today in The New York Times, along with an article headlined “In New York, Mix of Emotions Over 9/11 Trial Move” and an editorial entitled “It Happened in Our Backyard.”
And The Associated Press has a report headlined “Many obstacles to choosing a site for 9/11 trials.”
“Politicians target corruption law; They are waiting for U.S. Supreme Court ruling”: Today’s edition of The South Florida Sun-Sentinel contains an article that begins, “Some of South Florida’s public officials who were swept up in recent public corruption investigations hope the U.S. Supreme Court will make a favorite prosecution tool disappear when the justices rule on a controversial law aimed at dishonest politicians. Prosecutors say the 20-year-old federal law in question, honest services fraud, is a valuable anti-corruption measure.”
“May it please the court? Sotomayor agrees to receive Dunnellon students.” The Ocala Star-Banner has this report.
“Three lives linked by call to duty, common tragedy; The sacrifices of Harvard Law graduates who took unconventional paths leave friends and classmates searching for answers about themselves”: Farah Stockman has this front page article today in The Boston Globe.
“Scott Roeder’s calculated path to murder”: Ron Sylvester will have this lengthy article Monday in The Wichita Eagle.
And online at Slate, Emily Bazelon has a jurisprudence essay entitled “Murder He Wrote: A jury convicted Scott Roeder of killing Dr. George Tiller after a rocky trial.”
“California gay marriages may hinge on one man”: Columnist Dan Walters has this op-ed today in The Sacramento Bee. The one man he writes of is U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
And Neon Tommy, the online publication of the Annenberg School of Journalism, has a blog post titled “Prop. 8 Trial Finds Its Way to YouTube.” You can view the reenactment at this link.
“An advocate for juveniles; Law center fights for justice”: This article appears today in The Times Leader of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
“Ghosts in the Machine: What happens when justices get personal.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“U.S. Supreme Court: Government’s hand on a slippery Internet.” Michael Kirkland of UPI has this report.
“No sanctions for Bush lawyers who approved waterboarding, report will say”: This article will appear Sunday in The Washington Post.
And last night at the web site of Newsweek, Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman had a blog post titled “Justice Official Clears Bush Lawyers in Torture Memo Probe.”
“Panel Nerds: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Is Human.” Yesterday, the Mediaite web site posted an essay that begins, “The walls of Kaufmann Concert Hall at the 92nd Street Y are adorned with the names of some of history’s greatest thinkers: Jefferson, Shakespeare, Maimonides. When Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined them on stage, she fit right in.” (Via WSJ.com’s “Law Blog.”)
“Court: Conduct board must turn over Conahan complaint.” Today’s edition of The Citizens’ Voice of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania contains an article that begins, “The state Judicial Conduct Board must provide a state panel investigating the Luzerne County kids-for-cash corruption scandal with a confidential misconduct complaint against former Judge Michael T. Conahan, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday.”
The syllabus that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued with its ruling yesterday states, “Mr. Chief Justice Castille delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which Messrs. Justice Saylor, Eakin and Baer, Madame Justice Todd, and Mr. Justice McCaffery joined with respect to Sections I and II; and in which Messrs. Justice Eakin, Baer and McCaffery joined with respect to Sections III-A and III-B; and an Opinion, in which Messrs. Justice Eakin and McCaffery joined, with respect to Sections III-C and IV. Mr. Justice Baer filed a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion. Madame Justice Todd filed a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, in which Mr. Justice Saylor joined. Madame Justice Orie Melvin filed a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion.”
“Obama v. Alito: Political dust-up during State of the Union; Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito apparently took umbrage at President Obama’s comment about the court’s recent decision on corporate campaign contributions; Was either of them out of line?” The Christian Science Monitor has this report.
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Critics raise specter of foreign campaign spending.”
Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal reports that “Reformers Hope High Court Decision Will Kill Judicial Elections; The ‘Citizens United’ opinion, they reason, may drive more money into judicial races and turn off the public.”
Today in The New York Times, Dorothy Samuels has an “Editorial Notebook” essay entitled “Hanging a ‘For Sale’ Sign Over the Judiciary.”
And in Sunday’s edition of The Washington Post, Martha C. White will have an essay entitled “Idea of company-as-person originated in late 19th century.”
Majority on divided three-judge Fifth Circuit panel holds that notice of appeal specifying that the plaintiff was appealing from the dismissal of a claim against only two of the five individual defendants sufficed to appeal against all five: You can access Thursday’s ruling, which the court posted online yesterday, at this link. Because the court affirmed the dismissal, the dispute over whether the notice of appeal should be construed more broadly than its plain text will not have any lasting consequence in this case.
Nevertheless, this ruling demonstrates two important things. First, no step in the appellate process is so easy that it cannot be fouled-up due to inadequate attention. And, second, the ruling demonstrates that deciding what to appeal, and ensuring that the notice of appeal will effectuate that decision, are among the most critical steps in the appellate process.
Update: The August 20, 2007 installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com was headlined “You Call That a Notice of Appeal?”
By the way, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(1) — titled “Contents of the Notice of Appeal” — does not require that a notice of appeal specify the party or parties against whom an appeal is being taken, although designating the party or parties against whom an appeal is being taken is certainly one way of specifying that only a part of a judgment or order is being appealed. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B).
“Trials in child’s death delayed until final ruling on gag order”: This article appears today in The Toledo Blade.
“The public face of gun-rights battle: Southwest Side resident is part of next month’s Supreme Court test of Chicago’s gun ban.” Sunday’s edition of The Chicago Tribune will contain a lengthy article that begins, “From behind the wheel of his hulking GMC Suburban, 76-year-old Otis McDonald leads a crime-themed tour of his Morgan Park neighborhood.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “New pleas for gun rights; Final McDonald briefs filed.”
“Open the Shut Case: Why is KBR so afraid of letting Jamie Leigh Jones have her day in court?” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“U.S. to Move 9/11 Trial From New York City, Official Says”: The New York Times has a news update that begins, “The Obama administration on Friday gave up on its plan to try the Sept. 11 plotters in Lower Manhattan, bowing to almost unanimous pressure from New York officials and business leaders to move the terrorism trial elsewhere.”
The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Administration drops plans to try alleged 9/11 conspirators in N.Y.C.”
And online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick and Michael Newman have a short item headlined “YIMBY: Tell us why KSM should be tried in your hometown.”
“Senate bill says governor should choose Utah Supreme Court’s leader”: The Salt Lake Tribune has this news update.
“Affiliates cheer Supreme Court; Decision on political ad spending may boost revs”: Variety has a report that begins, “The Supreme Court has delivered a stimulus package to local TV stations.”
Does the Second Amendment apply to the States?; Petitioners’ reply brief filed today in McDonald v. City of Chicago: You can access the reply brief at this link (via “The Volokh Conspiracy” and “Cockle Blog“).
“Vrdolyak’s probation-only sentence overturned”: The Chicago Sun-Times has a news update that begins, “Former Chicago Ald. Ed Vrdolyak’s probation-only sentence for fraud has been overturned by an appellate panel, meaning he could face prison time when he is re-sentenced.”
The Chicago Tribune has a blog post titled “Appeals court overturns Vrdolyak’s probation sentence.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Court says probation too soft for politician.”
Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner delivered today’s majority opinion for a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Circuit Judge David F. Hamilton issued a lengthy dissenting opinion.
Update: Thanks to the many, many readers of this blog who emailed to note that this post had originally misidentified the author of the dissent. That’ll teach me to mistake the Seventh Circuit’s second newest judge for the Seventh Circuit’s newest judge!
“Jury finds Scott Roeder guilty of first-degree murder in death of George Tiller”: The Wichita Eagle has this news update.
The Kansas City Star has a news update headlined “Roeder found guilty of murdering abortion doctor.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Man convicted of murdering Kan. abortion provider.”
“Alito vs. Obama — who’s right? A criticism, and a retort.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
“Supreme Court won’t force Khadr repatriation; But Canada’s highest court also says Omar Khadr’s Charter rights have been violated and warns it has the power to act more overtly if Ottawa fails to take action”: Kirk Makin of The Toronto Globe and Mail has a news update that begins, “Omar Khadr is not coming home yet — but the Supreme Court of Canada has moved his repatriation considerably closer.”
The Toronto Star has a news update headlined “Court refuses to order Khadr home; Supreme Court finds that Omar Khadr’s rights were violated at Guantanamo Bay, but rules lower courts went too far in ordering federal government to seek his return.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Canada’s top court won’t force detainee’s return.”
You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada at this link.
“Roeder takes stand, admits killing Tiller”: This article appears today in The Wichita Eagle.
The Kansas City Star reports today that “Judge bars Roeder jury from considering manslaughter conviction.”
The New York Times reports that “Doctor’s Killer Puts Abortion on the Stand.”
And The Wall Street Journal reports that “Roeder Says He Shot Abortion Provider; Murder Defendant Testifies He Acted to Protect Fetuses; Judge Rules Jurors Cannot Consider Lesser Manslaughter Charge.”
“Constitutionality of ‘Jessica’s Law’ questioned; Treating sex predators differently from other violent offenders may violate equal protection guarantees, the California Supreme Court says”: Maura Dolan has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
And Greg Moran of The San Diego Union-Tribune reports today that “Calif court wants proof on confining sex predators.”
My earlier coverage of yesterday’s ruling appears at this link.
“A Rare Rebuke of Justices, in Front of a Nation”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.
Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Reactions split on Obama’s remark, Alito’s response at State of the Union.” The newspaper also contains an article headlined “Democrats prepare legislation to counter ruling on campaign spending.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Obama-Alito tensions surface at State of the Union address; There’s a history behind Justice Alito’s visible reaction to the president’s criticism of a Supreme Court ruling. Now opponents in the debate over corporate election spending are taking sides.” Meanwhile, in yesterday’s newspaper, Stephen R. Weissman had an op-ed entitled “Campaign finance ruling’s likely impact overblown; The Supreme Court’s decision striking down limits on corporate spending in election campaigns is unlikely to change the political situation on the ground.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Alito and Obama Face Alleged Breaches of Etiquette.” The newspaper also contains an article headlined “Foreign Spending on Politics Fought“; an editorial entitled “Obama v. the Supremes: Alito wins the oral, and factual, argument“; and an op-ed by law professor Randy E. Barnett entitled “Obama Owes the High Court an Apology; The justices were there as a courtesy to him.”
And today’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Will Foreign Corporations Be Able To Influence U.S. Elections.”
“The Senate should confirm Dawn Johnsen: Obama’s choice to head the Office of Legal Counsel is more than qualified, and the GOP obstruction to her confirmation needs to end.” Yesterday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times contained this editorial.
“Administration Considers Moving Site of 9/11 Trial”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
The Washington Post reports today that “Obama faces dwindling options in his effort to close Guantanamo Bay.”
And in The Miami Herald, Carol Rosenberg has an article headlined “Review: Most Guantanamo detainees should be released or transferred; A review of detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay prison camps provides the first specific numbers for what the Obama administration thinks should be done with the remaining captives.”
“The Next Time”: At the “Opinionator” blog of The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse has a post that begins, “Three years ago, after Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. led the Supreme Court to the brink of overturning a few precedents but then blinked, a frustrated Justice Antonin Scalia accused the chief justice of ‘faux judicial restraint.’ It was foreseeable then that something would have to give: either the faux or the restraint. Now we know. Goodbye to restraint.”
We’re too Boring for Google Maps: Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a non-precedential ruling in a case captioned Boring v. Google Inc.
In news coverage of the ruling, Shannon P. Duffy of The Legal Intelligencer reports that “3rd Circuit OKs Homeowners’ Trespass Suit Against Google.”
And Bloomberg News reports that “Google Must Face Trespass Suit Over Street View of House, Pool.”
“Justice Stevens Renews Criticism of Gerrymandering”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this article today, along with an article headlined “Justice Stevens on How He Joined the Court.”
“Roeder trial: Judge rules out manslaughter option.” The Kansas City Star has this news update.
The Wichita Eagle has a news update headlined “Jury to decide whether Scott Roeder is guilty of first-degree murder, aggravated assault.”
And The Associated Press reports that “No manslaughter defense in abortion doc’s slaying.”
