“Oral Argument Heard In Fox Profanity Case”: The so-called “fleeting profanity” case made its return today to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court. C-SPAN’s was there, and you can view today’s oral argument online, on-demand by clicking here. Carter Phillips and Miguel Estrada argued the case today on behalf of the television networks.
At Broadcasting & Cable, you can access a report headlined “FCC, Fox Square Off On Profanity…Again; Second Circuit hears oral arguments, focuses on First Amendment implications of FCC’s indecency regime.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Appeals judges mock ‘fleeting expletives’ policy.”
“High court: No cameras at gay marriage trial.” The Associated Press has this report.
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Prop 8 Court TV blocked.”
You can access the Court’s 5-4 ruling, which consists of a per curiam opinion and a dissenting opinion, at this link.
“NY court OKs Internet music sales lawsuit”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.
“All in the Family: The Supreme Court plays nice over international child custody.” Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.
“Court seem skeptical of NFL antitrust protection”: The Associated Press has this report.
At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “A playoff, of sorts, in store for NFL?”
And at the blog “First One @ One First,” law student Mike Sacks demonstrates that he was once again the first one in the “general public” line to see today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments.
“Judges issue order to cut California prison population”: Denny Walsh has this article today in The Sacramento Bee.
Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “State ordered to cut inmate numbers in 2 years.”
And The Los Angeles Times reports that “Judges OK Schwarzenegger plan to reduce prison crowding; The proposal includes some home detention with satellite tracking devices, permitting some felons to serve time in county jails instead of state prisons and reducing sentences for property crimes.”
“Historian makes the case for same-sex marriage”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle. And Joe Garofoli has an essay entitled “YouTube broadcasts would humanize issue.”
Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reports today that “Proposition 8 trial turns to historians on second day.”
Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Witnesses in Prop. 8 trial examine history of marriage, gays; Professors describe racial bans on marriage and bias against gays; Opponents of same-sex unions accuse scholars of being advocates with views shaped by their opinions.”
And The Sacramento Bee reports that “Historians tell of longtime discrimination against gays at Prop. 8 trial; Defense attorney says nattative is ‘irrelevant.’”
“Top Terror Prosecutor Settles Into a Familiar Role”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
“The fight against full-body scanners at airports: ‘We don’t need to look at naked 8-year-olds and grandmothers to secure airplanes,’ a lawmaker says; The TSA is adding machines to screen more passengers, much to the chagrin of privacy advocates.” David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
Once again, a new day brings no long-awaited campaign finance ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court: But if you were awaiting the Court’s ruling in NRG Power Marketing, LLC v. Maine Pub. Util. Comm’n, No. 08-674 (oral argument transcript available here), you are in luck, as that was the one decision in an argued case announced today.
“Justices to tackle NFL antitrust case; ‘Single-entity’ control at issue”: This article appears today in The Washington Times.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports today that “NFL antitrust case headed to Supreme Court.”
Today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “Contracts Hang In Balance As NFL Case Kicks Off” featuring Nina Totenberg.
At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Pro sports and antitrust: Argument Preview.”
Meanwhile, in commentary, The New York Times contains an editorial entitled “Football and Antitrust.”
The Wall Street Journal contains an editorial entitled “An Antitrust Super Bowl: Will the Supreme Court let the NFL behave like a normal business?”
In The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Mark Greenbaum has an op-ed entitled “American Needle v. the NFL will have profound impact.”
And at the web site of Sports Illustrated, Michael McCann has an essay entitled “Why American Needle-NFL is most important case in sports history.”
“Killer Frank Spisak, not his attorney, brought on death penalty, justices rule”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports today that “Execution for Nazi-loving Cleveland murderer can move forward, despite his lawyer’s ‘outrageous’ representation.”
And The Columbus Dispatch reports that “Supreme Court upholds death sentence for neo-Nazi; Lawyer for triple-murderer erred but didn’t change outcome, justices say.”
“Specter now says he’ll support Dawn Johnsen for Office of Legal Counsel”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.
And Politico.com reports that “DOJ nominee appears to have 60 votes.”
“Abbott, some scholars disagree on constitutionality of health care plan”: Chuck Lindell had this article yesterday in The Austin American-Statesman.
“Supreme Court Weighs Authority, Not Legality, of Civil Confinements”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.
Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Supreme Court debates right to commit sexual predators after prison terms.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court hears arguments on detaining sex offenders; Despite concerns, most justices seem inclined to uphold a federal law permitting authorities to confine ‘sexually dangerous’ people after their prison terms have been completed.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Justices Hear Sex-Offender Case.”
Joan Biskupic of USA Today reports that “Court weighs inmates’ detention past sentences; Convicts seen as ‘sexually dangerous.’”
Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court justices appear split on US sex offender law; The 2006 law permits the US government to hold convicted sex offenders even after they’ve served their sentences; Hearing arguments Tuesday, the Supreme Court justices sparred over whether Congress has exceeded its authority.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Sex-Offender Commitment Law Gets Support at U.S. Supreme Court.”
James Vicini of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices question sex offender confinement law.”
On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “Court Weighs Indefinite Detention Of Sex Offenders.”
And Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal reports that “High Court Struggles With Child Custody, Sex Offender Cases.”
“Pa. Court Revives Plaintiff Verdict in State’s First Precedential Hormone-Replacement Case; Plaintiffs counsel are viewing the decision as a promising harbinger for the dozens of other HRT cases on appeal”: law.com has now made the article that I linked to here yesterday freely available online at this link.
“Terror conspirator Padilla appeals conviction”: The Associated Press has this report.
“Court TV and judicial powers”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
“Justices hear case on releasing sex offenders”: The Associated Press has this report.
And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a related post titled “SG Kagan Gives Scalia a Promotion, Briefly.”
“Justices step directly into cameras-in-court debate”: Tony Mauro has this analysis online at the First Amendment Center.
“I can appreciate the majority’s attempt to avoid criticism of a sister court, but the sheer mushy applesauce consistency of the majority opinion in avoiding a jurisdictional confrontation with the D.C. Circuit should be obvious.” In an en banc ruling issued today, the majority on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit avoids a jurisdictional rumble with the D.C. Circuit. The quote that serves as this post’s title comes from the conclusion of an opinion dissenting from today’s outcome.
As for who would win such a street fight, it’s a difficult call. The D.C. Circuit, having correctly recognized the rights the Second Amendment confers, would no doubt appear fully armed to the teeth. But the Federal Circuit might have even more ingenious devices at hand.
No long-awaited campaign finance ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court today: But if you were awaiting the Court’s ruling in Smith v. Spisak, No. 08-724 (oral argument transcript available here), you are in luck, as that was the one decision in an argued case announced today. The Court is schuled to issue one or more additional opinions in argued cases tomorrow at 10 a.m. eastern time.
Update: In news coverage of the ruling, The Associated Press reports that “Court reinstates death sentence for Ohio neo-Nazi.”
“Plaintiff says Prop. 8 ‘means I’m unequal'”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle. The newspaper also reports that “High court pulls plug on YouTube trial coverage.”
Today in The Los Angeles Times, Maura Dolan has an article headlined “Tearful testimony on discrimination at Prop. 8 trial; The first day of the landmark case includes opening statements on the nature of marriage, a history of the institution and the struggles two same-sex couples have endured because they can’t marry.” In addition, David G. Savage and Carol J. Williams report that “Prop. 8 trial video barred — for now; The Supreme Court’s order, which expires Wednesday, apparently reflects the justices’ concerns that the coverage could bring harm to witnesses.”
Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “Historic Prop 8 trial opens with emotional testimony from gay couples.”
The Sacramento Bee reports that “Couples tell of toll from state gay marriage ban as Prop. 8 trial begins.”
The New York Times contains an article headlined “Personal Focus as Same-Sex-Marriage Trial Opens in California.” And Adam Liptak reports that “Justices to Review Plan for Webcasts of a Trial.”
USA Today reports that “Prop 8 trial gets underway offline; High court says no posts on YouTube.”
The Wall Street Journal contains an article headlined “New Battle on California Ban; Federal Trial Opens Challenging Law Against Gay Marriage; Supreme Court Weighs In.”
The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Gay marriage trial begins with tough questions for both sides; Opening arguments began Monday in what could be a landmark trial for gay marriage; The case, which challenges California’s ban on same-sex marriage, Proposition 8, could go to the US Supreme Court.”
And Dan Levine of The Recorder, who is covering the trial live via his Twitter account, reports that “Gay Couples Testify as Marriage Case Starts.”
“Panel Revives Plaintiff Verdict in State’s First Precedential HRT Case”: Amaris Elliott-Engel has this article, in which I am quoted, in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.
This is a case in which I have served, and continue to serve, as appellate counsel for the plaintiff. My earlier posts linking to the appellate court’s ruling and the plaintiff’s appellate briefs can be accessed here and here.
Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor is reporting: He has articles headlined “Supreme Court refuses challenge to school dress code; The Supreme Court Monday declined to take up a student’s challenge to a Texas school dress code; An appeals court ruling said the policy, which bars non-school-related messages on clothing, did not violate student free-speech rights”
and
“Supreme Court rejects appeal in child pornography case; The Supreme Court Monday rejected an appeal to overturn a conviction for producing child pornography; The defendant argued that the images — of children’s faces morphed on adults — did not involve sexual activity by minors and so were protected by the First Amendment.”
“Prosecutors oppose ‘imperfect self-defense’ for Roeder”: The Wichita Eagle contains this article today, along with an article headlined “Tiller’s wife opposes subpoena.”
The Kansas City Star reports today that “Roeder trial delayed as judge’s decision debated.”
The New York Times contains an article headlined “Delay in Trial for Abortion Doctor Killing.”
And The Christian Science Monitor contains an article headlined “‘Necessity’ defense: Did abortion doctor need to die? Scott Roeder insists he was justified in killing an abortion doctor because it prevented more abortions; His lawyers argue they should be allowed to use the so-called necessity defense; Jury selection is expected to take place this week.”
“Judicial Security”: This editorial appears today in The New York Times.
Today’s edition of The Las Vegas Sun contains articles headlined “Slain court officer remembered for service to Las Vegas” and “Nevada funerals subject to protest; Despite assemblyman’s efforts, state has no version of ‘Respect’ law.”
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that “Service celebrates life; Friends focus on how Stan Cooper lived, not died.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Slain ‘hero’ Vegas federal court guard eulogized.”
“Supreme Court looks at constitutionality of sex offender law; The Supreme Court Tuesday considers a law that allows the federal government to detain offenders it considers ‘sexually dangerous,’ even after completion of their sentences; Critics say the sex offender law intrudes on states’ authority”: Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.
Bill Mears of CNN.com has an article headlined “Can sex offenders be held after serving criminal sentences?”
And today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “Federal Prisoners Kept Beyond Their Sentences” featuring Nina Totenberg.
“Supreme Court revisits ruling on challenges to forensic reports”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post, along with an item headlined “Supreme Court Justices, law professor play with words.”
And Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal reports that “High Court Justices Grill Both Sides in Confrontation Clause Case.”
“With New Member, Supreme Court Takes New Look at Crime Lab Ruling”: Adam Liptak will have this article Tuesday in The New York Times.
In Tuesday’s edition of USA Today, Joan Biskupic will have an article headlined “Court revisits lab tests ruling; Analysts must testify in person.”
This evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Court Revisits Ruling Forcing Lab Analysts To Testify” featuring Nina Totenberg.
And this evening’s broadcast of the PBS program “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer” contained a segment entitled “Is It a Right to Confront Your Accuser in Court?” featuring Marcia Coyle.
“Blind Justice: The Supreme Court blacks out the YouTubing of the gay-marriage trial.” Online at Slate, Emily Bazelon has this jurisprudence essay.
“Letting pervs cruise the Web: Lifetime Internet ban struck down.” Michael Doyle of McClatchy’s Washington Bureau has this post at his “Suits & Sentences” blog about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued today.
Access online the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Briscoe v. Virginia, No. 07-11191: You can access the transcript in this Confrontation Clause-lab report case at this link.
“Judge has questions in gay marriage trial in CA”: The Associated Press has this report.
“At the Supreme Court, Life is One Big Vocabulary Lesson”: Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”
