“Tax court allows deduction for woman’s sex change”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The U.S. Tax Court ruled Tuesday that a Massachusetts woman should be allowed to deduct the costs of her sex-change operation, a decision that could have broad implications for transgender people.”
And “TaxProf Blog” has a post titled “Tax Court: Gender Reassignment Surgery Is a Deductible Medical Expense.”
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Tax Court at this link.
“Supreme Court’s campaign finance ruling: just the facts; Questions and answers about the Supreme Court’s ruling on campaign finance and how it will change America’s elections.” Warren Richey and Linda Feldmann of The Christian Science Monitor have this report.
The Associated Press reports that “Lawmakers pledge action to limit election spending.”
And ABC News senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper has a blog post titled “President Obama Not Backing Down Against Supreme Court.”
“Live from Stetson: It’s Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.” The St. Petersburg Times has this news update.
CBS affiliate WTSP-TV in St. Petersburg reports that “Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas visits Stetson law students.”
WUSF has reports headlined “Thomas Warm, Fuzzy at Stetson Speech” and “Clarence Thomas Glad He Avoided State of the Union.”
And Stetson University College of Law has a news release headlined “Justice Thomas Visits Stetson Law.”
“LAX ‘millennium bomber’ to be resentenced; 22 years is too lenient, court rules”: Carol J. Williams of The Los Angeles Times has this blog post.
And The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: Sentence for millennium plotter too lenient.”
You can access today’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.
Senior U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour will not get a third opportunity to impose a sentence on Ahmed Ressam because the majority has ordered that the case be reassigned on remand.
“Thomson Reuters Acquires Super Lawyers; Leading attorney rating business to align with Business of Law offerings”: So states a news release that Thomson Reuters issued today.
“US pushes for Noriega extradition to France”: The Associated Press has this report.
“GOP senators perfect art of stalling”: Online today at Politico.com, Nan Aron has an essay that begins, “The breathless reporting of the State of the Union ‘confrontation’ between President Barack Obama and the conservative members of the Supreme Court in the wake of the Citizens United v. FEC ruling has overshadowed a much more serious issue — congressional Republicans’ systematic blocking of the president’s judicial nominees.”
“California sex offender residency restrictions upheld; Housing restrictions barring offenders from living near schools or parks apply even to those convicted years before the law took effect, state Supreme Court says”: Maura Dolan has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
In today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Sex offenders lose challenge to residency rules.”
Denny Walsh of The Sacramento Bee reports that “California Supreme Court upholds key part of sex offender law.”
Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “California Supreme Court upholds parts of Jessica’s Law.”
And Greg Moran of The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that “Sex offenders’ court battles will continue; Justices reject some challenges to law.”
My earlier coverage of yesterday’s California Supreme Court ruling can be accessed here.
“Senate Must Move Swiftly on Court Vacancies”: Law professor Carl Tobias has this op-ed today in Roll Call.
“Rendition victim appeals to US Supreme Court”: Agence France-Presse has a report that begins, “A Canadian man who was transferred by US officials to Syria, where he was imprisoned and allegedly tortured, filed a suit before the US Supreme Court seeking to sue the United States. Maher Arar is appealing a lower court ruling that his case could not proceed because it involved secret national security information.”
Update: You can access the cert. petition at this link.
“Odor in the Court”: The Texas Tribune has an article that begins, “Forget all the rhetoric about the Jacksonian premise of a popularly elected judiciary. The public wants cash out of the courtroom — and that could mean pushing elections out, too.”
And attorney David Schenck has a related essay entitled “The End of Judicial Elections?”
“Court upholds state’s death penalty; After three-year delay, judge allows executions to resume”: Sean O’Sullivan has this article today in The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware.
My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Third Circuit ruling appears at this link.
“Graham seeks to block funding for civilian terror trials”: James Rosen of McClatchy Newspapers has this report.
“Prop. 8 trial on YouTube after all — re-enacted”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.
My earlier coverage of the YouTube reenactment can be accessed here.
“Early draft of the Constitution found in Phila.” The Philadelphia Inquirer contains this article today.
“Proposed appeals court doesn’t impress justice”: This article appears today in The Charleston (W. Va.) Daily Mail.
The Charleston Gazette reports today that “Chamber wrong about court appeals, chief justice says.”
And West Virginia MetroNews has a report headlined “Chief Justice Davis: No Intermediate Court Needed.”
“‘Original victims’ cheated in Luzerne scandal?” The Philadelphia Inquirer today contains an article that begins, “The state’s victim advocate yesterday urged a special panel not to forget the thousands of ‘original victims’ allegedly harmed by juveniles whose cases were heard by judges at the center of the Luzerne County criminal-justice scandal.”
“Disorder in the court: chief justice slams Justice Orie Melvin; Legal experts surprised by Castille’s ‘verbal sledgehammer.'” Today’s edition of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette contains an article that begins, “In an opinion more remarkable for its castigating tone than for the question of law it settled, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille last week delivered a broadside to fellow Justice Joan Orie Melvin, questioning her logic, her understanding of constitutional law and accusing her of ‘the height of judicial activism’ during her first month on the bench.”
On Saturday, I had this post linking to the opinions filed in that matter.
“Reagan defter in dealing with court”: Columnist Michael Smerconish has this op-ed today in The Philadelphia Daily News.
“High Court Campaign Finance Opinion Roils Dozens of Cases”: Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal has this report.
“Crime victim wants $3.4 million, but is that fair? Court, attorneys in porn case looking for an answer to a newly-posed question.” Today’s edition of The St. Paul Pioneer Press contains an article that begins, “Federal prosecutors Friday conceded that a Duluth man convicted of possessing child pornography should pay restitution to a girl he had photos of, but they don’t know how much he should pay.”
My earlier coverage of this matter appears at this link.
“Okla. men lose bid to sue Grisham, other writers”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court in Denver ruled that three public officials from Oklahoma cannot revive their libel lawsuit against best-selling author John Grisham and two other writers.”
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit at this link.
“Trial stirs painful memories of brutal home invasion”: CNN.com has this report from Cheshire, Connecticut.
“Mixed ruling on sex offender residency law”: Greg Moran of The San Diego Union-Tribune has a news update that begins, “The state Supreme Court left the door open Monday to contentions that strict restrictions on where some registered sex offenders can live are unconstitutional, but turned away other legal challenges to a 2006 law that toughened laws against sexual crimes.”
Denny Walsh of The Sacramento Bee has a news update headlined “California Supreme Court upholds law restricting where sex offenders live.”
Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News has an update headlined “California Supreme Court upholds parts of Jessica’s Law.”
And Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has a blog post titled “‘Jessica’s Law’ can be applied retroactively, state Supreme Court decides.”
My earlier coverage of today’s California Supreme Court ruling can be accessed here.
“Appeals court approves Del. execution protocols, lifts stay”: Sean O’Sullivan of The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware has a news update that begins, “Delaware’s death penalty has been upheld as constitutional by the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, which also has lifted a stay on all executions in the state.”
You can access today’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at this link.
The audio recording of the oral argument that I presented last Thursday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is now available online: You can access the audio via this link (37.7MB Windows Media audio file).
At some point in my initial argument, two judges on the panel join me in something of a “shout-out” to U.S. District Judge D. Brock Hornby of the District of Maine. I recently had the pleasure of sitting next to Judge Hornby at an event at the Newseum in Washington, DC.
On a totally unrelated point, the case that I argued was the day’s first oral argument, and I reserved four of my fifteen total minutes for rebuttal. I heard at the start of the second oral argument of the day, as I was leaving the courtroom, that the attorney for the appellant was asking the panel to reserve only one minute for rebuttal. The panel seemed a little surprised by the paucity of that request, although I did not stick around to see if the panel persuaded that lawyer to reserve additional rebuttal time.
In my experience, it is much more common to see a lawyer at an appellate oral argument try to reserve too much rebuttal time — say ten minutes for rebuttal in a fifteen-minute oral argument — than too little rebuttal time. But, on occasion, a lawyer forgets to reserve any rebuttal time, despite having wanted to do so, and must throw himself or herself on the mercy of the court to receive some extra time for rebuttal.
“Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General Joins Ropes & Gray to Lead Appellate and Supreme Court Practice”: The Ropes & Gray law firm today issued a news release that begins, “Ropes & Gray today announced that Douglas Hallward-Driemeier has joined the firm as a partner in its Washington, D.C. office. Mr. Hallward-Driemeier, formerly an assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States, will lead the firm’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice.”
“Calif court: Jessica’s Law needs more hearings.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, ”
The California Supreme Court has ordered more investigation into whether the state’s sexually violent predator law is constitutional. On Monday, a 5-2 court ruled that separate inquiries must be conducted into the claims of four registered sex offenders who allege they can’t find a place to live because the voter-approved ‘Jessica’s Law’ prohibits them from residing within 2,000 feet of schools, parks and other places where children congregate.”
You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of California at this link. And my preview of the ruling from last night can be accessed here.
“D&D is DOA in prison ruling”: David L. Hudson Jr. has this commentary online at the First Amendment Center.
“A Touch of Terror? Court looks at free speech vs. material support for terrorism.” David G. Savage has this article in the February 2010 issue of ABA Journal magazine.
“An act of defiance that changed history”: The Greensboro News & Record today contains an article that begins, “Fifty years ago, African Americans in Greensboro and across the South lived in a separate, but not necessarily equal, society. On Feb. 1, 1960, that started to change. That day, the wall of segregation that divided blacks and whites began to crumble. It happened on South Elm Street in Greensboro.”
Today’s edition of USA Today contains a front page article headlined “How a demand for lunch fueled the push for rights; 50 years ago, sit-ins reignited a movement.”
The Charlotte Observer contains an article headlined “Because he sat down, everything changed; 50 years ago, Franklin McCain and 3 friends asked for coffee at a ‘whites only’ lunch counter in Greensboro.” Yesterday’s newspaper, meanwhile, contained an article headlined “New museum in Greensboro will tell the story of ’60s sit-ins; Fifty years ago this week, a student movement against segregation began at a Woolworth store in Greensboro.”
The Fayetteville Observer reported yesterday that “Historic Woolworth store now houses civil right museum.”
The Winston-Salem Journal reported yesterday that “Civil-rights history preserved; Museum at former Woolworth building to open.”
The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina reported yesterday that “Museum shows how sit-ins defeated segregation.”
Today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “Fifty Years Later, N.C. Sit-In Site Becomes Museum.”
Today in The New York Times, Howell Raines has an op-ed entitled “The Counter Revolution.”
And in yesterday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, Andrew B. Lewis had an op-ed entitled “The sit-ins that changed America: The civil rights movement was energized by these ’60s-era protests.”
“Forces Pushing Obama on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell'”: The New York Times contains this article today.
And today’s edition of The Washington Post contains an editorial entitled “Repeal the military’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’”
“Sign a petition, disclose your name? The Supreme Court will decide whether petition signers have a constitutional right to have their names kept secret.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
“Officials OKd Miranda warning for accused airline plotter; At least four U.S. agencies were involved in a decision to read Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab his rights, sources say, after it was clear that he had stopped sharing information”: Richard A. Serrano and David G. Savage have this front page article today in The Los Angeles Times.
“Lawyers question Va. attorney general’s role in private case”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.
