“Michigan Supreme Court rules against Fieger”: Dawson Bell of The Detroit Free Press has a news update that begins, “In the first test of its new judicial disqualification procedure, a surprisingly unified Michigan Supreme Court declined today a request by Southfield attorney Geoffrey Fieger to remove the court’s three most conservative justices from hearing a case in which Fieger represents a man whose wife was killed in a transit van accident at Detroit Metro Airport.”
“Obama picked odd time and place to jab high court”: The Associated Press has this report.
“Court’s ruling on campaign funding draws fire”: Financial Times has this news update.
Agence France-Presse reports that “White House shrugs off Alito spat.”
At “The Caucus” blog of The New York Times, David Kirkpatrick has a post titled “White House v. the Supreme Court.”
At the web site of The New Republic, law professor Jeffrey Rosen has a blog post titled “Obama’s War With the Court Just Escalated.”
At the web site of The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin has a blog post titled “Alito’s Face.”
At ABCNews.com, Terry Moran has an essay titled “State of the Union: The Slam, the Scowl and the Separation of Powers; Obama, Alito and the Political Theater of a Constitutional Lesson.” And Jake Tapper has a blog post titled “Supreme Court Historian: After President’s ‘Insult,’ Won’t Be Surprised If Supreme Court Doesn’t Attend Next Year’s State of the Union Address.”
At the “PostPartisan” blog of The Washington Post, Eva Rodriguez has an entry titled “On Alito’s State of the Union head wag, you’re all wrong.”
And at the web site of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Bob Barr has a blog post titled “Obama insults Supreme Court with uncivil remarks.”
“High court wants more proof for Jessica’s Law”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The California Supreme Court wants the government to show more proof that confining sexually violent predators indefinitely is constitutional.”
My earlier coverage of this ruling from earlier today appears here.
Seventh Circuit examines the Class Action Fairness Act’s “home-state exception” to federal court removal: Thanks to the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the Seventh Circuit gets to decide a case involving the extent to which Kansas residents are the users of cell phones with Kansas area codes. Senior Circuit Judge Terence T. Evans is the author of today’s ruling for a unanimous three-judge panel
Second Circuit decides remainder of challenge to New York State’s current felon disenfranchisement laws: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.
Today’s rulings of note from the Supreme Court of California: A minor’s statement while in police custody that “I want my mommy!” will no longer suffice simply by itself to invoke the minor’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent as the result of a decision issued today. The statement may suffice to invoke the right to counsel, however, if the mommy also happens to be a lawyer.
And, by means of a separate ruling issued today, California’s highest court has reinstated an equal protection challenge to a California law that subjects sexually violent predators — but not other ex-felons, such as mentally disordered offenders — to indefinite civil commitment.
“Sen. Leahy: Court’s decision most partisan since Bush v. Gore.” The Hill provides this news update.
And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “Leahy Lashes Out at Citizens United Ruling.”
The prepared text of today’s remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate by Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) can be accessed here.
“On the stand, Scott Roeder admits to killing George Tiller”: The Wichita Eagle has this news update.
And The Associated Press reports that “Defendant testifies he killed Kan. abortion doctor.”
“Supreme Court moves right, focus on social issues”: James Vicini of Reuters has this report.
“Alito disparages Obama’s Supreme Court criticism”: The Associated Press has this report.
At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has posts titled “High Court is Rare Topic for State of the Union Speeches” and “Justice Alito’s State of the Union Dissent.”
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “History plays a role in Obama-Alito flap.”
Jeffrey Toobin, CNN Senior Legal Analyst, has an essay headlined “Alito’s reaction to Obama was fair.” CNN.com also reports that “Gloves come off after Obama rips Supreme Court ruling,”
Politico.com has reports headlined “Orrin Hatch: Obama ‘rude’ to court” and “Sen. Russ Feingold: Samuel Alito behavior ‘inappropriate.’”
In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, my former Columbia College classmate Naftali Bendavid has an article headlined “At This Obama Speech, Courtesy From Ascendant Republicans.”
At her “Crossroads” blog, CBS News correspondent Jan Crawford has a post titled “Obama Skewers Court–and Signals Change Ahead.”
Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick has a blog post titled “Leave Alito Alone.”
Blogging at the web site of The Atlantic Monthly, Andrew Cohen has a post titled “SOTU: Anatomy of a ‘Slam’ That Wasn’t.”
At Salon.com, Glenn Greenwald has a blog post titled “Justice Alito’s conduct and the Court’s credibility.”
And “InstaPundit” rounds up much more online coverage in posts you can access here and here.
Appellate two-fer: This morning’s oral argument at the Third Circuit seemed to go very well. Once that court posts the oral argument audio online, I will link to it.
This afternoon, I will be filing in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania a petition for allowance of appeal — the Pa. state court equivalent of a cert. petition in the U.S. Supreme Court.
This afternoon’s filing would seem to have a better than average chance of being granted, because it presents questions of separation of powers and judicial deference to the legislative branch. Moreover, Pennsylvania’s highest court has already recognized that these particular questions would be deserving of resolution in an appropriate case.
You can access this afternoon’s filing at this link, the decision sought to be reviewed at this link, and another law firm’s online critique of that decision at this link. And for those who want to see what a petition for allowance of appeal that has actually been granted by Pennsylvania’s highest court looks like, you can access two such examples here and here.
Programming note: On Thursday morning, I’ll be presenting an oral argument to a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Additional posts will appear here somewhat later in the day.
“2 thrown out of Bush event can’t continue suit”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued today.
“Dismantled: The public never saw artist Christoph Buchel’s giant installation at Mass MoCA; Now, as the museum takes it apart, documents filed in a bitter lawsuit offer a behind-the-scenes look at just what went wrong.” This article appeared in The Boston Globe back in October 2007. Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued this lengthy decision in that lawsuit. Interestingly, The Boston Globe article that I have linked to above is mentioned in the first sentence of today’s opinion.
“Obama: Supreme Court Opened the Floodgates for Special Interests.” Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”
“Where to hold 9/11 trial? Not in NYC, some say.” The Associated Press has this report.
“Bill would limit access to online court records”: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this news update.
“Defense lawyers rest case at gay marriage trial”: The Associated Press has this report.
“All four articles of impeachment approved against Judge Porteous”: Bruce Alpert of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans has this news update.
And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” David Ingram has a post titled “House Committee Adopts Articles of Impeachment Against Judge Porteous.”
“Appeals court skeptical of campaign finance rules”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “In the first court hearing since the Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance regulations, a federal appeals court seemed poised Wednesday to strike down additional limits on money in politics.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “The new world of campaign finance law: D.C. Circuit questions FEC restraints.”
“State Supreme Court upholds law protecting children from porn”: The Columbus Dispatch has a news update that begins, “A never-enforced state law designed to protect children from obscenity on the Internet does not infringe on the free-speech rights of adults, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled this morning.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Ohio high court narrowly interprets anti-porn law.”
You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Ohio at this link. The court also issued a news release headlined “Court Agrees With AG’s Reading of Law Banning Electronic Transmission of Pornography to Minors.”
The case arrived at Ohio’s highest court on certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
“Oklahoma high court allows some use of line-item veto”: This article appears today in The Oklahoman.
And The Tulsa World reports today that “Henry’s use of line-item veto upheld; Lawmakers who brought the lawsuit disagree with the high-court ruling.”
You can access yesterday’s 5-4 ruling of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma at this link.
“Lively Arguments in Tobacco Case Center on Preclusive Effect of Factual Findings”: Janet L. Conley of the Fulton County Daily Report has an article that begins, “In a lively and complex Gordian Knot of an argument before a federal appeals court on Tuesday, lawyers for the nation’s largest tobacco companies wrangled with attorneys for a woman whose husband died of lung cancer over whether factual findings in a 2006 Florida state case may be applied in some 4,000 federal death and injury suits.”
Bloomberg News reports that “Cigarette Makers Ask to Block Ruling in 4,000 Cases.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Federal panel considers key Fla. tobacco appeal.”
“Justices to hear appeal on Roundup Ready alfalfa seed”: This article appears today in The Billings Gazette.
“Attacker hits chief justice with sneaker in face”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “An Israeli man hurled his sneakers at Israel’s Supreme Court chief justice on Wednesday, striking her between the eyes, breaking her glasses and knocking her off her chair.”
And The Jerusalem Post reports that “Man throws shoes at Justice Beinisch; Shoe hits Supreme Court president’s head; man detained by court guards.”
“Former Justice O’Connor Sees Ill in Election Finance Ruling”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.
“Campaign-finance fights not over; High court’s ruling on spending limits was just one case”: This article appears today in USA Today.
“Will California gay-marriage trial go to Supreme Court? As a federal court considers the constitutionality of a voter-approved ban in California, some gay-marriage advocates say a Supreme Court decision could be the best path to legalization.” The Christian Science Monitor has this report.
“Dungeons & Dragons Prison Ban Upheld”: In Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times, John Schwartz will have an article that begins, “Prisons can restrict the rights of inmates to nerd out, a federal appeals court has found.”
My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Seventh Circuit ruling appears at this link.
Unfortunately, The NYTimes web site hasn’t yet figured out the proper way to provide a working link to the Seventh Circuit’s rulings.
“O’Connor: Corporate campaign funds could affect judiciary.” Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this news update, along with a blog post titled “O’Connor: ‘Don’t know’ if Bush v. Gore the right decision.”
And Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “O’Connor talks politics, judicial independence.”
“O’Connor Mildly Criticizes Court’s Campaign Finance Decision”: Adam Liptak has this post at “The Caucus” blog of The New York Times. Details of the event at which retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor spoke today can be accessed here.
In somewhat related coverage, last Friday’s edition of The Washington Times contained an article headlined “O’Connor exit set stage for campaign ad ruling.”
“Courts deeply split on Ten Commandments displays”: David L. Hudson Jr. has this commentary online today at the First Amendment Center.
“Fla. woman fights ruling that kept her in hospital”: The Associated Press has this report.
“Witnesses describe events surrounding the shooting of George Tiller”: This article appears today in The Kansas City Star.
The Wichita Eagle reports today that “Ushers say Roeder pointed a gun at them.”
The Associated Press reports that “Abortion shooting case keeps focus on details.”
And the February 2010 issue of GQ magazine contains a lengthy article headlined “Savior vs. Savior: Both men believed they were doing right: Dr. George Tiller was one of the last men in America willing to provide late-term abortions. Scott Roeder was convinced that killing his kind was the duty of the righteous. As Tiller’s murder case goes to trial, and after hours of interviews with the accused, Devin Friedman re-creates the fateful day their paths–and their convictions–finally crossed.”
