“Justices Uphold Background Checks”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Supreme Court limits privacy rights of federal contract workers; Ruling on a lawsuit brought by researchers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the court upholds the personal background checks required of thousands of people who work under government contracts.”
Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Court says NASA background checks can continue.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Privacy Rights of U.S. Workers Curbed by Supreme Court in Contractor Case.”
And James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court upholds NASA employee background checks.”
Update: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Constitutional issue left open: The Court refuses to clarify whether the Constitution does, in fact, protect individuals from disclosure by the government of information about their private lives; It goes on to uphold background checks for employees of government contractors.”
“High court hears case on corporate privacy”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument recap: Losing on a privacy claim? The concept of ‘personal privacy’ for corporations found next to no support from the bench as the Court heard an appeal on the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.”
You can access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in FCC v. AT&T Inc., No. 09-1279, at this link.
“Tucson Video Shows Judge Saving Other Victim”: The Wall Street Journal has this news update.
Sixth Circuit reinstates civil lawsuit seeking damages against attorney who downloaded images of children from a stock photo website, digitally “morphed” them into pornography, then used the images to help his clients resist child pornography charges: Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton today issued this interesting opinion on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The lawsuit was brought by the guardians of the children whose images the attorney had morphed into pornography.
“U.S. Supreme Court to take Medi-Cal lawsuit case”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.
The Los Angeles Times reports today that “U.S. Supreme Court to decide if California can cut payments to Medi-Cal providers; Justices will decide whether to allow the cash-strapped state to reduce what it pays to doctors, hospitals and other providers of healthcare for the poor.”
And Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers reports that “Supreme Court takes on states’ plans to cut Medicaid payments.”
“UT admission policy upheld; Court that banned use of race now cites Supreme Court case”: This article appears today in The Austin American-Statesman.
Reuters reports that “Appeals court upholds University of Texas over race admissions.”
The Associated Press reports that “Court upholds UT Austin admissions standards.”
At the “School Law” blog of Education Week, Mike Walsh has a post titled “Appeals Court Upholds Use of Race in Texas Admissions.”
And at the blog “First One @ One First,” Mike Sacks has a post titled “Is the End Near for Affirmative Action?”
My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Fifth Circuit ruling appears at this link.
“Friends of the Court?” Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial that begins, “The Roberts court is hearing a larger share of cases about economic activities that matter to big business than the Rehnquist court before it.”
“Court hears gay dads’ La. birth certificate case”: The Associated Press has this report on a case that will be reargued en banc today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. I will link to the oral argument audio recording when the court posts it online.
Meanwhile, in somewhat related news, The New York Times reports today that “Parenting by Gays More Common in the South, Census Shows.”
Access online today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: In the first decision announced today, Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in NASA v. Nelson, No. 09-530. You can access the oral argument via this link. The Chief Justice and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor joined in the opinion of the Court. Justice Antonin Scalia issued an opinion concurring in the judgment in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined. Justice Thomas also issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Justice Elena Kagan did not participate.
In the second decision announced today, Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court in Harrington v. Richter, No. 09-587. You can access the oral argument via this link. The Chief Justice and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor joined in the opinion of the Court. Justice Ginsburg issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Justice Kagan did not participate.
And in the third and final decision issued today, Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court in Premo v. Moore, No. 09-658. You can access the oral argument via this link.The Chief Justice and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor joined in the opinion of the Court. Justice Ginsburg issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Justice Kagan did not participate.
“Work E-Mail Not Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege, Court Says”: At Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog, David Kravets has a post that begins, “E-mails between a client and attorney are no longer considered privileged and confidential if the client writes the messages from a work e-mail account, a California court of appeals has ruled. The 3-0 decision Thursday by the Sacramento Third Appellate District means that if you intend to sue your employer, don’t discuss the suit with an attorney using company e-mail. The company has a right to access it and use it against you in a court.”
You can access last Thursday’s ruling of California’s Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District at this link.
“Judge John M. Roll appears to have died while helping to save the life of Ronald Barber, one of Ms. Giffords’s employees”: So reports an article that will appear in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.
The Washington Post offers a similar observation in a news update headlined “Videos show Tucson shooting in detail, sources say.”
“Appeals court upholds use of race in UT admissions”: The Austin American-Statesman has a blog post that begins, “The University of Texas’ consideration of race and ethnicity in undergraduate admissions passes legal muster, a federal appeals court ruled today.”
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link. Each of the three judges on the panel issued a separate opinion.
“Lawyer Seeking Order That ‘Will Compel … Volokh to Remove His … Blog [Post]'”: Law professor Eugene Volokh had this post yesterday at “The Volokh Conspiracy” addressing an “emergency” motion filed yesterday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
“The Oldest Bench Ever: Extreme aging in the federal judiciary–and the trouble it causes.” Joseph Goldstein has this very interesting jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
Articles of interest recently posted online at SSRN: Professors Ryan J. Owens and Justin Wedeking have posted an article titled “Picking an Unsettled Brain: The Role of Cognitive Complexity in Ideological Drift on the United States Supreme Court” (via “Legal Theory Blog“).
Law professor Daniel A. Farber has posted an article titled “Federal Preemption of State Law: The Current State of Play” (via “Legal Theory Blog“).
Law professor Christopher Slobogin has posted an article titled “Is the Fourth Amendment Relevant in a Technological Age?” (via “Legal Theory Blog“).
And law professor Tung Yin has posted an article titled “Independent Appellate Review of Knowledge of Falsity in Defamation and False Statements Cases” (via “Legal Theory Blog“).
Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: The Court has posted today’s Order List at this link. The Court today granted review in a group of three consolidated cases involving the Medicaid Act. The Court also called for the views of the Solicitor General’s office on one case.
In early news coverage, The Associated Press has reports headlined “Court rejects appeal over DC gay marriage law“; “High court denies man’s gun arrest appeal“; “High court rejects Gitmo detainee appeal“; “Court turns down appeal of child porn conviction“; “Court won’t stop class-action suit against Pella“; “Court won’t reconsider Sudan lawsuit dismissal“; “Justices remove roadblocks in 2 Texas executions“; and “High court rejects appeal in Arizona execution.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court to rule on Medicaid cuts.”
“Credibility’s Power: Appellate Lawyers Should Be Forthright In Addressing Their Cases’ Weaknesses.” This month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column appears today in The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.
Starting this month, The Legal Intelligencer has scheduled my monthly column to appear on a Tuesday, which is the one day each week that the newspaper is distributed state-wide. Going forward, my column is scheduled to appear on the second Tuesday of each month.
“Change of venue likely in Jared Loughner trial; Legal experts say the trial of the Tucson shooting suspect will probably take place outside Arizona because the tragedy has affected so many potential jurors, and judges, in the state”: Carol J. Williams has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
Today in The San Diego Union-Tribune, Greg Moran reports that “Justice Department to fight moving Loughner case; The judge and defense lawyers are from San Diego, but a change of venue isn’t certain.”
The Arizona Republic reports that “Prosecutors want Arizona shooting case to stay in state; No motion has been filed asking to change venue.”
And in The New York Times, Lincoln Caplan has an Editorial Notebook essay entitled “The Insanity Defense, Post-Hinckley.”
“Court hears appeal from Anna Nicole Smith’s estate”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has this report.
At The Hill’s “Pundits Blog,” Lanny J. Davis & David B. Rivkin Jr. have a post titled “The Anna Nicole Smith Supreme Court case: Uniting liberals and conservatives.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Legal soap opera runs on.”
“Donations influenced Supreme Court decision, doctor says”: This article appears today in The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch.
“Traveling man’s gun arrest appealed to high court”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has this report.
“High Court to Consider State Secrets Doctrine”: Jess Bravin will have this article Tuesday in The Wall Street Journal.
Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Supreme Court: Is US unfairly hiding behind state-secrets privilege? Since 1953, the US has been able to derail lawsuits it says could reveal state secrets; The Supreme Court will look at a case Tuesday that questions whether the privilege is being applied properly.”
Tuesday’s edition of The Washington Post will contain an editorial entitled “Supreme Court can curb abuse of ‘state secrets’ privilege.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has this oral argument preview.
“Supreme Court of Canada’s winter session kicks off”: This article appears in The Lawyers Weekly.
“Anger over courtesy titles for supreme court justices; Critics say system discriminates against the husbands and civil partners of justices”: The Guardian (UK) has this report.
“Santa Clara County’s fight to get paid back for drug overcharges reaches U.S. Supreme Court”: Howard Mintz has this article today in The San Jose Mercury News.
“Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Canady imposes order to prevent another ‘Taj Mahal'”: Tuesday’s edition of The St. Petersburg Times will contain an article that begins, “There may never be another ‘Taj Mahal’ courthouse in Florida.”
“Justice O’Connor to speak at Reef”: This article appears today in The Virgin Islands Daily News.
“Courts plagued by jump in cases”: Last Friday’s edition of The San Antonio Express-News contained an article that begins, “A skyrocketing number of immigration and drug cases along the U.S.-Mexico border and delays in nominating and confirming judges to fill vacancies are creating a judicial emergency in Texas and other Southwest states, federal officials say.”
“Life’s a beach for federal judges”: This front page article appears today in The Philadelphia Daily News, along with a related article headlined “How the Virgin Islands and Philly ended up in same circuit.”
“Test of ‘state secrets’ shield goes before Supreme Court”: Joan Biskupic will have this article Monday in USA Today.
“Supreme Court justices are not laughing at you. They’re laughing with you.” Robert Barnes will have this article Monday in The Washington Post.
“Jurist went by to greet, thank his old friend Gabby”: This article appears today in The Arizona Daily Star.
“Broken-down-door policing: A Kentucky marijuana arrest presents a troubling threat to Americans’ right to privacy.” The Los Angeles Times contains this editorial today.
“Tennessee judges donate to politicians who oppose judicial elections; Political contributions go to those who oppose judicial elections”: This article appears today in The Tennessean.
“Hobbled Iowa Supreme Court slow to act”: Grant Schulte has this article today in The Des Moines Register.
