“Ga. Supreme Court upholds ER statute”: Bill Rankin of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a news update that begins, “The Georgia Supreme Court on Monday upheld a key provision of the state’s tort reform law that makes it more far more difficult for patients to win damages in cases involving emergency room care.”
The Associated Press reports that “Ga. court upholds key medical malpractice changes.”
And the Atlanta Business Chronicle reports that “Georgia Supreme Court upholds ER liability provision.”
You can access today’s 4-3 ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia at this link.
“Obama’s focus on financial rules, Supreme Court opinion could aid Democrats”: The Washington Post contains this front page article today.
And at that newspaper’s “Political Bookworm” blog, law professor Jeffrey Rosen has a guest post titled “In the contentious case of Obama v. Supreme Court: ruling will come in the court of public opinion.”
“U.S. Supreme Court tosses career criminal sentence in Jacksonville case; High court puts shackles on career criminal guidelines”: This article appears today in The Florida Times-Union.
“Butler rejects U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts as commencement speaker; Students’ commencement suggestion of Roberts came too late, prof says”: Saturday’s edition of The Indianapolis Star contained an article that begins, “If U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts comes to his niece’s graduation at Butler University, it won’t be as the commencement speaker. A student-led proposal to invite Roberts, an Indiana native whose niece is in Butler’s senior class, to speak at Butler’s May 8 graduation was shot down by faculty members. The move disappointed students and raised the ire of some conservatives on campus, but university leaders said they wanted to avoid the controversy that a visit by the Supreme Court jurist might bring.”
“Obama losing chance to reshape judiciary; Liberals had hoped he would counter a slew of conservative appointments in federal courts made by his Republican predecessors; But that hasn’t happened”: James Oliphant has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
“After Stevens: What will the Supreme Court be like without its liberal leader?” Jeffrey Toobin has this profile in the March 22, 2010 issue of The New Yorker.
“White House stands ground on high court criticism”: The Associated Press has this report.
“Justice Stevens Keeping ‘Options Open’ on Retirement”: Tony Mauro has this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”
“Was life sentence justice for one just starting life?” The Lincoln Journal Star today contains this article reporting on “the only Nebraskan serving a life sentence with no chance of parole for a crime other than a homicide committed as a juvenile.”
“What the Supreme Court sees in Snyder v. Phelps”: This article appears today in The York (Pa.) Sunday News.
Yesterday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times contained an editorial entitled “Protecting the vile: Distasteful protests by a fringe religious group at military funerals are still protected by the 1st Amendment.”
Yesterday’s edition of The Baltimore Sun contained an editorial entitled “Free speech is paramount: Everyone has a right to express their views, even when they’re deplorable.”
And today in The Philadelphia Inquirer, columnist Michael Smerconish has an op-ed entitled “Free (and hateful) speech vs. the right to gather: Justices should rule against a Kansas church group that protested at a fallen Marine’s funeral.”
“Your Reality TV”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial that begins, “In a new poll, more than 60 percent of respondents said televising Supreme Court proceedings would be good for democracy. We agree, but the court seems determined to keep its work out of the public’s eye.”
“Critics: Military trial of terror suspects could open cases to legal uncertainty.” This article appears today in The Washington Post.
“Justices Will Prevail”: Jeff Shesol, author of the new book “Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court,” has this op-ed today in The New York Times.
“Justice’s wife launches ‘tea party’ group; The nonprofit run by Virginia Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is likely to test notions of political impartiality for the court”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
And in the Week in Review section of today’s edition of The New York Times, Adam Liptak has an article headlined “Tea-ing Up the Constitution.”
“U.S. Supreme Court: Will liberal Kagan find a home in high court?” UPI has a report that begins, “As the drama builds to Justice John Paul Stevens’ inevitable retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court, one name keeps popping up as a probable successor — Elena Kagan, solicitor general of the United States.”
“Court case could add wrinkle to beach replenishment”: This article appears today in The Sarasota Herald-Tribune, along with an article headlined “Beaches a major playground for controversy.”
“Texas Supreme Court tosses $15.8 million verdict in case involving illegal immigrant; Immigration status should not have been an issue at trial, justices rule”: Today in The Austin American-Statesman, Chuck Lindell has an article that begins, “The Texas Supreme Court threw out a $15.8 million verdict Friday, ruling unanimously that lawyers improperly introduced evidence that a gravel truck driver involved in a 2002 accident that killed four members of a Wise County family was an illegal immigrant.”
Yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Texas consists of a majority opinion and an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
“Intermediate appeals court debate continues”: This article appears today in The Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette.
“Miranda protection reduced by SJC”: The Boston Globe today contains an article that begins, “The state’s high court said for the first time yesterday that police do not have to give a Miranda warning to a suspect who has consulted a lawyer and has that lawyer with him or her while being questioned by police.”
And The Winchester Star reports today that “SJC hands down ruling in Winchester murder case.”
You can access yesterday’s 4-3 ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts at this link.
“State Supreme Court to hear insurance case”: In today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “With hundreds of millions of dollars potentially at stake, the state Supreme Court has agreed to referee a dispute between accident victims and insurers for those who injured them. The justices voted unanimously this week to hear an appeal by a company whose insurer was faced with paying the full cost of treating an accident victim, even though the hospital had provided its services at a discount.”
“Justice Clarence Thomas sends Cedar Hill student a surprise package”: This article appears today in The Dallas Morning News.
“Clarence Thomas, Silent but Sure”: Linda Greenhouse has this post at the “Opinionator” blog of The New York Times.
“Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she would forbid state judicial elections”: Robert Barnes had this article yesterday in The Washington Post.
“Santa Cruz man gets rehearing in Nazi salute”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “A federal appeals court granted a new hearing Friday to a homeless-rights advocate who sued the city of Santa Cruz after he was expelled from a City Council meeting for giving a mock Nazi salute to the mayor.”
The Santa Cruz Sentinel reports today that “Outspoken Santa Cruz City Council critic Robert Norse to get another day in court.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Court in SF to rehear Nazi salute case.”
You can access at this link yesterday’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granting rehearing en banc.
My earlier coverage of the three-judge panel’s original ruling can be accessed here.
“Obama chooses 1st young appeals court nominee”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Thirteen months into his presidency, Barack Obama finally gave liberal supporters the kind of judicial nominee they had sought and conservatives feared. Goodwin Liu, 39, is an unabashed liberal legal scholar who, if confirmed, could become a force on the federal appeals court for decades.”
“Court sides with newspapers in dispute with RDU”: The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina has an update that begins, “The Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority is violating the First Amendment with its ban on newspaper coin vending racks at the airport, a federal appellate court ruled today.”
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at this link.
“Court OKs TV rules opposed by Comcast, Cablevision”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal court has upheld regulations that require cable TV companies to make channels they own available to satellite TV providers and other rivals on equal terms.”
Bloomberg News reports that “Comcast, Cablevision Lose Challenge to Sharing Rule.”
Reuters reports that “U.S. court backs ban on some cable TV program deals.”
And The Wall Street Journal has a news update headlined “Court Upholds FCC Ban On Exclusive Cable Contracts.”
Circuit Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh issued a lengthy dissenting opinion expressing the view that the regulations at issued violated the First Amendment. The dissent may ultimately lead to U.S. Supreme Court review of the case.
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.
“Second Circuit Rejects Most Of Attorney Advertising Rules”: The New York Law Journal has a report that begins, “In rejecting the bulk of New York’s content-based restrictions on attorney advertising, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held Friday that a ban on the use of nicknames like ‘Heavy Hitters’ or client testimonials about pending cases violates the First Amendment.”
And at the “New York Personal Injury Law Blog,” Eric Turkewitz has a post titled “2nd Circuit Rejects Most of New York’s Attorney Advertising Rules.”
You can access today’s Second Circuit ruling at this link.
Programming note: Due to some work-related meetings out of the office this afternoon, additional posts will not appear until later today.
“Appeals court reinstates limits on brothel ads; AG applauds and ACLU decries decision”: This article appears today in The Las Vegas Review-Journal.
“Pledge of Allegiance’s God reference now upheld by court; In 2002, the U.S. 9th Circuit of Appeals had ruled that the pledge’s use of ‘One nation under God’ made it unconstitutional; The panel now says no federal law requires students to recite it”: Carol J. Williams has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
In today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Appeals Court says ‘Under God’ not a prayer.”
Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “Appeals court rejects challenge to Pledge of Allegiance in schools.”
Dan Levine of The Recorder reports that “Reinhardt Stands Alone on 9th Circuit’s Pledge of Allegiance ‘Under God’ Ruling.”
And The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Federal court approves ‘under God’ in Pledge of Allegiance; Atheist Michael Newdow challenged ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance and ‘in God we trust’ on US currency as unconstitutional endorsements of religion; But the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals said the references to God are grounded in historical philosophy and politics.”
“3rd Circuit Asked to Clarify Student Internet Speech Cases”: Shannon P. Duffy of The Legal Intelligencer has this report.
“Cleveland to fight for its gun restrictions in front of Ohio Supreme Court”: The Cleveland Plain Dealer contains this article today.
And today’s edition of The Columbus Dispatch contains an article headlined “Home rule vs. gun law case goes to top court.”
“SJC backs trigger-lock law on guns in homes”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.
The Boston Herald reports today that “SJC upholds law requiring safe gun storage.”
The Cape Cod Times reports that “SJC ruling clouds Mass. gun laws.”
And SouthCoastToday.com reports that “Massachusetts SJC rules 2nd Amendment does not apply to states.”
My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling can be accessed here.
“GOP takes issue with Holder’s signing of terrorism-related legal brief in ’04”: The Washington Post has a news update that begins, “Senate Republicans attacked the attorney general Thursday for failing to disclose during his confirmation process last year that he had signed a 2004 legal brief in an important terrorism case.”
Friday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an article headlined “Holder Failed to Disclose Brief on Detainee Policy.”
Politico.com reports that “Holder under fire for Padilla brief.”
And at WSJ.com’s “Washington Wire” blog, Evan Perez has a post titled “Holder: In the Hot Seat, Again.”
