“Ruling on Arizona voter law to be reconsidered”: The Arizona Republic has this news update.
Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update headlined “New life for Arizona’s voter citizenship law.”
Howard Fischer of The Yuma Sun has a news update headlined “Appeals court to hear Arizona voter ID case.”
And Bloomberg News reports that “Arizona Voter Citizenship Proof Law Gets Second Panel Review.”
My earlier coverage of today’s Ninth Circuit order granting rehearing en banc can be accessed here.
Client and her lawyer may face sanctions from the Second Circuit for having pursued appeal from dismissal of lawsuit against high-ranking federal officials alleging “a fantastical alternative history” of 9/11 attacks: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.
Recent posts from Ronald Dworkin at the “NYR Blog” of The New York Review of Books: He has posts titled “Bad Arguments: The Roberts Court & Religious Schools” and “More Bad Arguments: The Roberts Court & Money in Politics.”
“High court wary of Vt. limits on Rx data mining”: Tony Mauro has this news analysis online at the First Amendment Center.
“Supreme Court Ruling Places Limits on Class Actions”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Companies can block customers’ class-action lawsuits, Supreme Court rules; Consumers have been able to band together to sue corporations, but the Supreme Court rules in a Southern California case that firms can force customers to arbitrate their complaints individually; The ruling is seen as a major victory for corporations.”
Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “At Supreme Court, another ruling in favor of corporations, critics say; The Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision is a victory for business groups that favor tough enforcement of arbitration agreements; Critics say it puts the rights of corporations over individuals.”
Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Court rules for company in dispute over taxes on ‘free’ cell phone.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Class Actions Limited as U.S. Supreme Court Supports AT&T.”
James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court rules for AT&T in arbitration case.”
And at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog,” Ashby Jones has a post titled “After AT&T Ruling, Should We Say Goodbye to Consumer Class Actions?”
“The Political Divides in DC Appellate Practices — A Comment on the Clement Kerfuffle”: Orin Kerr has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
Ninth Circuit grants rehearing en banc to consider before 11-judge panel whether Arizona’s requirement of proof of citizenship to register to vote is preempted by the National Voter Registration Act: You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.
My earlier coverage of the divided three-judge panel’s ruling can be accessed here. Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor had provided the dispositive vote on the original three-judge panel, but she will be unable to participate in the decision on rehearing en banc.
“Quirks of N.F.L.’s Case May Foil Anyone’s Guess”: In today’s edition of The New York Times, John Schwartz has this article about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
“High court hears dispute over Nev. ethics law”: The Associated Press has this report.
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Scalia guarding the slope: Hearing its final argument of the Term, the Court openly resists creating a new First Amendment right for legislators when they cast their votes on pending bills.”
Access online today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in an argued case: Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No. 09-893. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court imposes limits on class actions.”
“Supreme Court Examines State, Local Ethics Laws”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Ethics on the City Council: The Court, in its final oral argument of the Term, on Wednesday examines the free speech rights of members of elected legislatures, like a city council, when they vote on policy issues.”
“D.A. to appeal court ruling for Abu-Jamal resentencing”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Daily News.
My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Third Circuit ruling appears at this link.
“Detainees’ Lawyers Can’t Click on Leaked Documents”: The New York Times contains this article today, along with articles headlined “Secret Case Against Detainee Crumbles” and “In WikiLeaks’ Growth, Some Control Is Lost.”
“Justices’ Debate Turns to Privacy for Doctors”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.
And in today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Supreme Court skeptical that prescription data laws don’t violate free speech.”
“Atheists Seek Chaplain Role in the Military”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
“The Best Offense Is a Good Defense: Why even opponents of DOMA should want it to get a vigorous defense.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
