“M.D. Ginsburg, 78, Dies; Lawyer and Tax Expert”: This obituary appears today in The New York Times.
Today’s edition of The Washington Post contains an obituary headlined “Martin D. Ginsburg dies at 78; tax law expert, Supreme Court spouse.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has an obituary headlined “Martin D. Ginsburg dies at 78; Georgetown law professor, husband of Ruth Bader Ginsburg; Ginsburg was among the nation’s foremost experts on tax law; He and his wife met as students at Cornell on a blind date in 1951 and were married in 1954.”
Joan Biskupic of USA Today reports that “Justice Ginsburg’s husband and ‘best friend’ dies at age 78.”
And Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Martin Ginsburg, Husband of Justice Ginsburg, Dies.”
“The High Court: Ruling on naming petition signers leaves room for interpretation.” Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post.
“Study Finds Questioning of Nominees to Be Useful”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times. And law professor Noah Feldman has an op-ed entitled “The Triumphant Decline of the WASP.”
Today’s edition of The Washington Post contains an article headlined “As Kagan confirmation hearings begin, Republicans struggle for line of attack.” The newspaper also contains an article headlined “The Kagan hearings: Drama at the staff level is unseen but intense“; an editorial entitled “A Supreme conversation“; and an op-ed by columnist George F. Will entitled “More questions for nominee Elena Kagan.”
James Oliphant of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearing to start Monday; Senate Republicans are expected to grill Obama’s Supreme Court nominee on issues such as gun control and campaign finance reform. Kagan is expected to be confirmed.”
The Boston Globe reports that “Midterm politics form Kagan backdrop; Hearings on court pick will air parties’ issues.”
The Washington Times reports that “GOP promises tough queries at Kagan hearings; Prior confirmation uneventful.”
The New York Daily News reports that “Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s liberal views will be hot topic at Senate confirmation hearings.”
The Salt Lake Tribune reports that “Hatch wary of Kagan’s ‘activist’ record.”
The Providence (R.I.) Journal reports that “Whitehouse key to Kagan.”
Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Kagan hearings to begin with questions from left and right.”
Politico.com reports that “GOP eager to press case in Elena Kagan hearing.”
The Associated Press reports that “Kagan to break silence as marathon vetting begins.”
Reuters reports that “Obama’s high court pick Kagan faces Senate hearing.”
The Hill reports that “Republicans look to grill, not block Kagan” and “Supreme Court expert predicts ’63, 64′ votes for Kagan.”
Fortune has an article headlined “Elena Kagan, wild card for big business.”
Agence France-Presse reports that “Obama high court pick to face tough Senate questions.”
And on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “At Confirmation Hearings, GOP Eyes Kagan’s Record.”
“Gun rights among Supreme Court’s final decisions”: The Associated Press has this report.
“Senators signal contentious hearing on Supreme Court nominee”: CNN.com has this report.
“Martin Ginsburg, justice’s husband, dies”: The Associated Press has this report.
And the Public Information Office of the U.S. Supreme Court issued this news release earlier today.
“GOP senators: Can Kagan be impartial judge?” Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.
Hearst Newspapers have reports headlined “Conservatives not united in opposing Kagan” and “Liberals question Kagan’s stance on detainees.”
Today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer contains a front page article headlined “Specter ready to press Kagan to take a stand.”
Today’s edition of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that “Kagan getting her day in court; Specter could grill her over activism, lack of paper trail at Senate hearing.”
The Boston Globe Sunday Magazine contains an article by Farah Stockman headlined “Elena Kagan and the Harvard stigma: Sadly, the knee-jerk label of elitist just won’t die.”
And in The Washington Post, law professors John F. Manning and David A. Strauss have an op-ed entitled “Why Elena Kagan should drop the ‘Kagan standard’ at her hearings.”
“Court to rule on corporate reform law and gun rights”: James Vicini of Reuters has this report.
“At Kagan Hearings, the Topic May Be Obama and Roberts”: This fromt page article will appear Sunday in The New York Times.
In Sunday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, James Oliphant, Richard A. Serrano and David G. Savage will have an article headlined “Kagan’s a not so leftist liberal; The daughter of a crusading New York street lawyer and protege of Justice Thurgood Marshall, the Supreme Court nominee’s specialty has been finding a middle position on the most contentious issues.”
Sunday’s edition of The Washington Post will contain an article headlined “Civil rights organizations question nominee Elena Kagan’s record on race.”
The Associated Press reports that “Kagan’s life an undeviating course to high court.”
And tomorrow’s broadcast of NPR’s “Weekend Edition Sunday” will contain an audio segment entitled “Skeptical Republicans Await Kagan’s Answers.”
“Closing Guantanamo Fades as a Priority”: Charlie Savage has this article today in The New York Times.
“In a Mentor, Kagan’s Critics See Liberal Agenda”: John Schwartz has this article today in The New York Times.
Today in The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “Kagan Hearings Promise Political Theater.”
Michael Doyle and David Lightman of McClatchy Newspapers report that “Kagan treads carefully ahead of her turn in Senate spotlight.”
The Harvard Crimson reports that “Kagan’s Stance on Military Recruiting Under Scrutiny.”
At Politico.com, Josh Gerstein has an article headlined “Elena Kagan and the porn wars.”
Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “How Elena Kagan worked to limit military recruiting at Harvard.” And Mike Sacks of the blog “First One @ One First” has a lengthy article headlined “Elena Kagan: Would she turn Supreme Court into We the People?”
Bloomberg News has articles headlined “Kagan Will Prove `Supremely Qualified,’ Official Says“; “Kagan’s Diverse, ‘Decrepit’ Manhattan Helped Shape Her Outlook“; and “Kagan Court Nomination Helps Interest Groups Raise Money, Rally Support.”
Reuters has reports headlined “Senate set to begin Kagan court confirmation hearing” and “Kagan bucks 40-year trend as US court pick; Would be high court’s fourth woman justice.”
And on yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “How Women Changed The High Court … And Didn’t.”
“Troy Davis hearing ends; no date yet for decision on new trial”: This article appears today in The Savannah Morning News, along with an article headlined “Wright Square regulars ready for normalcy after Troy Davis case.”
And today in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Bill Rankin reports that “Judge must decide whether Troy Davis proved innocence in cop killing.”
“Daley ready to respond if Chicago’s handgun ban overturned”: The Chicago Sun-Times has this news update.
And The Chicago Tribune has a news update headlined “Daley: City Council could consider new gun laws within days of Supreme Court ruling.”
“Court Rejects Secrecy on Ballot Petitions”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.
In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Justices say petition signers should not expect their names to be kept secret.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Court Upholds Law Disclosing Names on Petitions.”
The Chicago Tribune reports that “Supreme Court rules for disclosure of initiative signatures.”
Les Blumenthal of McClatchy Newspapers reports that “Supreme Court deals setback to gay rights foes in ballot case.”
The Seattle Times reports that “Ref. 71 signatures are public, Supreme Court rules.”
SeattlePI.com has a report headlined “Supreme Court on R-71: Names on petitions can be made public; Public disclosure case attracted national attention.”
Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Sign a political petition? Supreme Court says the public can know; The case centered on a Washington State referendum on a domestic partnership law; Fear of harassment, the Supreme Court ruled, is not enough to keep petition signers anonymous.”
Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal reports that “High Court Rejects Effort to Keep Names of Petition Signers Secret.”
And yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Transparency Trumps Privacy In Petitions, Court Says.”
“The ‘Super Median’: On an ideological court, it’s all about keeping Justice Kennedy.” Richard Brust will have this article in the July 2010 issue of ABA Journal magazine.
“Soldiers’ group blasts Kagan on recruitment”: The Associated Press has this report.
“Bilski, Kenny Rogers and Supreme Court Rule 46”: Law professor John F. Duffy has this interesting post today at “Patently-O.”
“Praise for an Israeli Judge Drives Criticism of Kagan”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
Politico.com reports that “All eyes on Kagan’s support of Barak.”
ABCNews.com has a lengthy article headlined “Inside the Mind of Elena Kagan: Mountain of Memos Reveals Clues to Supreme Court Nominee’s Views on Hot Button Issues.”
CNN.com has a report headlined “CNN Poll: Support for Kagan confirmation drops.”
The Associated Press reports that “Major lawyers group calls Kagan well qualified.”
Today’s edition of The Washington Times contains an editorial entitled “The case against Kagan: Radical Obama nominee answers to politics, not the law.”
In The Washington Post, columnist George F. Will has an op-ed entitled “A few ‘vapid’ questions for Kagan.”
And Bloomberg News columnist Ann Woolner has an essay entitled “Bork’s Kagan Comments Remind Why He Was Borked.”
“Judges’ hands tied by oil industry interests; Many presiding in gulf states are heavily invested in the oil and gas industries, creating the possibility of mass recusals in lawsuits and legal challenges stemming from the BP spill”: Carol J. Williams had this article yesterday in The Los Angeles Times.
“As Wone trial closes, judge questions defendants’ reticence”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.
And “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times” has posts titled “Prosecutor: Wone Trial Defendants Will Fall Together in Conspiracy” and “Defense: Prosecution’s Case Nothing But ‘Patchwork of Suspicious Circumstances.’”
“Justices Limit Use of ‘Honest Services’ Law Against Fraud”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times. The newspaper also contains an article headlined “Conviction in Bruno Case Is in Doubt After Ruling,” an editorial entitled “Balance of Prosecutorial Power,” and an essay by columnist Floyd Norris entitled “Rolling Back a Law Born of Enron.”
In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Supreme Court decision casts doubt on former Enron CEO’s conviction.” The newspaper also contains an article headlined “Defense attorneys laud Supreme Court ruling that casts doubt on CEO convictions.”
The Los Angeles Times contained an article headlined “Supreme Court ruling to narrow anti-corruption law could aid former Enron chief Jeffrey Skilling” and an editorial entitled “A flawed fraud law: The Supreme Court narrows the law’s broad language, which could snare almost any deceitful businessman or politician.”
The Wall Street Journal contains articles headlined “Justices Limit Fraud Law; Court Rules Prosecutors Overreached in Convictions of Enron’s Skilling, Others” and “For Skilling, an Elusive Victory.”
Joan Biskupic of USA Today reports that “Justices limit scope of anti-fraud law, 9-0; Ruling scraps parts of convictions for some famous former executives.”
The Houston Chronicle contains articles headlined “Skilling ruling leaves much undecided; Supreme Court limits scope of federal law, but a long battle looms from prison“; “Former Enron workers’ emotions still raw; But some worry about implications of high court view that one law didn’t apply to Skilling“; and “Sotomayor dissent on trial venue surprises experts; The justice cites media and the effect Enron had on Houston.”
The Chicago Tribune contains articles headlined “Conrad Black could benefit from ‘honest services’ ruling; Supreme Court finds jury was given improper instructions on what constituted fraud in case of former Chicago Sun-Times executive” and “Illinois corruption defendants see opening as court narrows ‘honest services’ law; Attorneys for Blagojevich and Ryan examining if Supreme Court ruling will have repercussions as prosecutors must now rely on more traditional statutes to prove fraud.”
The Chicago Sun-Times contains articles headlined “Prosecutors lose powerful weapon; ‘Honest services’ fraud cases are too vague, justices rule in Enron case” and “Supreme Court decision not likely to help Black, Skilling get out of prison soon.”
The Anchorage Daily News reports that “Court ruling on anti-corruption law impacts Alaska cases; Less precise conflict-of-interest statute thrown out by justices.”
The Toronto Globe and Mail reports that “Black calls ruling ‘immensely gratifying.’”
Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal reports that “In 4 Key Rulings, Supreme Court Limits Fraud Statutes’ Reach; On the civil side, justices ruled that securities fraud class actions involving foreign investors or firms cannot be filed in U.S. courts unless shares were bought or sold within the U.S.”
At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “‘Honest services’ law pared down.”
And from NPR. yesterday evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “High Court Sides With Ex-Enron CEO Skilling” featuring Nina Totenberg. And on today’s broadcast of “Morning Edition,” Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “High Court Reins In Use Of Fraud Law.”
“Dawn Johnsen: ‘I Have No Regrets.'” This audio segment appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”
“Oregon Supreme Court rejects $100 million cigarette verdict”: The Statesman Journal of Salem, Oregon has a news update that begins, “Philip Morris won’t have to pay $100 million or more in punitive damages to the estate of a Salem woman who died of cancer related to cigarette smoking.”
The Oregonian has a news update headlined “Oregon Supreme Court says Philip Morris doesn’t have to pay $100 million for smoker’s death.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Ore. trial court to reconsider $100M tobacco case.”
You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Oregon at this link.
“Life sentences overturned in smuggling deaths case”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court on Thursday overturned the multiple life sentences a truck driver received for his role in the nation’s deadliest human smuggling attempt, more than seven years after the bodies of 19 illegal immigrants were discovered in a tractor-trailer.”
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.
“Driven to distraction: 15 cats in car is too risky.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The South Dakota Supreme Court has ruled that a police officer acted correctly when he seized 15 cats from a woman who was driving with the animals running free inside her car.”
You can access yesterday’s 3-2 ruling of the Supreme Court of South Dakota in State v. Fifteen Impounded Cats at this link.
Access online today’s rulings in argued cases of the U.S. Supreme Court: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court in Skilling v. United States, No. 08-1394. You can access the ruling at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.
You can access all of today’s opinions via this link. Due to a family event, additional posts will not appear here until later this afternoon or early this evening.
Update: This morning, the Court issued a total of seven rulings in argued cases. In addition to the Skilling case that I’ve already linked to, above, the Court today issued the following rulings.
2. Justice Ginsburg also delivered the opinion of the Court in Black v. United States, No. 08-876. You can access the ruling at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.
3. Completing today’s “honest services” trilogy, the Court issued a per curiam ruling in Weyhrauch v. United States, No. 08-1196. You can access the ruling at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.
4. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court in Granite Rock Co. v. Teamsters, No. 08-1214. You can access the ruling at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.
5. Justice Thomas also delivered the opinion of the Court in Magwood v. Patterson, No. 09-158. You can access the ruling at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.
6. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., No. 08-1191. You can access the ruling at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.
7. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Doe v. Reed, No. 09-559. You can access the ruling at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.
In coverage of today’s rulings, The Associated Press has reports headlined “High court reins in prosecutors’ use of fraud law“; “High court: Petitioners’ names can be released“; “High court sides with Aussie bank in fraud lawsuit“; and “Court allows new argument in Alabama killing.”
“G.O.P. Bears Down on Kagan as Hearings Near”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
Today in USA Today, Joan Biskupic has a front page article headlined “Will Kagan be as open as she wanted others to be? Court nominee gets her turn before Senate on Monday.”
The Associated Press has an article headlined “Kagan: From a mock Supreme Court to the real thing.”
And WSJ.com’s “Washington Wire” blog has a post titled “Polls Show Kagan’s Support Doesn’t Run Deep.”
“Critics, supporters step up their efforts on Kagan”: The Associated Press has this report.
“Robert Wone would have died within seconds of stabbing, heart surgeon testifies”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.
“Teachers on vacation spend time in Supreme Court”: The Associated Press has this report.
“Troy Davis heads back to court in Savannah; Federal judge to find whether evidence ‘clearly establishes’ Davis’ innocence”: The Savannah Morning News contains this article today.
And today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “Death Row Inmate Gets Chance To Prove Innocence.”
“Gerald W. Heaney, a Judge Who Ruled for the Desegregation of Public Schools, Dies at 92”: This obituary appears today in The New York Times.
Today’s edition of The Minneapolis Star Tribune contains an obituary headlined “Judge was behind-scenes DFL power; But beyond the politics, friends remember someone who fought for the underdog.”
Minnesota Public Radio reports that “Gerald Heaney, influential Minn. judge, dies at 92.”
And The Duluth News Tribune contains an editorial entitled “Accomplishments, honors guarantee Heaney’s legacy.”
Second Circuit confers qualified immunity on police officer who arrested man for violating a solicitation law that New York State’s highest court had declared unconstitutional 18 years earlier because that law, despite being invalid, is “still on the books”: You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.
“N.J. Supreme Court sides with Moorestown couple in Avalon beach case”: Today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer contains an article that begins, “A Moorestown couple must be compensated for beach property seized by Avalon to build protective dunes after a devastating 1962 nor’easter, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.”
The Newark Star-Ledger reports today that “N.J. top court rules couple can seek payment for taken Avalon beach property.”
And The Atlantic City Press reports that “Edward and Nancy Klumpp can seek compensation for beach lot taken by Avalon in 1962, state Supreme Court decides.”
You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of New Jersey at this link.
“Divided 9th Circuit Cites Watergate Judge in Confrontation Clause Ruling”: Dan Levine of The Recorder has this report.
You can access Monday’s en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski‘s dissenting opinion is certainly worth a look.
