“Ex-chief loses in top court; The U.S. Supreme Court ruling against Guarnieri called win for public employers”: Terrie Morgan-Besecker has this article today in The Times Leader of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
The Citizens’ Voice of Wilkes-Barre reports today that “U.S. Supreme Court rules against ex-Duryea police chief.”
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that “Justices’ decision on free speech claim praised, faulted.”
At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Limits on ‘Petition Clause’: The Court allows public employees with workplace grievances to file a lawsuit against their government employer under the First Amendment’s Petition Clause, but only if the lawsuit involves a ‘matter of public concern’ — the same limitation that the Court has previously placed upon public workers’ lawsuit under the Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.”
And at the “School Law” blog of Education Week, Mark Walsh has a post titled “Supreme Court Limits Public-Employee Grievance Rights.”
“Supreme Court to review pilot’s privacy suit”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.
“High court shields AEP from state suits over emissions”: This article appears today in The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch.
“Is Voting Speech?” Stanley Fish has this post at the “Opinionator” blog of The New York Times.
“Appeals court declines to rehear Texas affirmative action case”: Reuters has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court has refused to rehear a case challenging the University of Texas’ affirmative action admissions policy. The denial sets the stage for a fight in the U.S. Supreme Court.”
And The Chronicle of Higher Education reported yesterday that “Federal Appeals Court Hands Setback to Foes of Race-Conscious Admissions.”
My earlier coverage of last Friday’s Fifth Circuit order denying rehearing en banc and the dissent therefrom can be accessed here.
U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear dam lawsuit: The Helena Independent Record reports today that “Supreme Court will hear PPL appeal of state ruling.”
“Supreme Court justice and sports team owner among winners of prize for service”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and sports team owner Jerry M. Reinsdorf are among those being honored in Washington with a national prize for public service.”
“First Amendment Veterans Weigh In on Free Speech in the Roberts Court”: Zoe Tillman has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”
“Global-warming lawsuit rejected by Supreme Court; In an 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court kills a global-warming lawsuit filed by eight states and environmentalists against the nation’s five largest electric power companies; The court says Congress and the EPA already have authority to make rules regulating greenhouse gases and courts need not get involved”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.
Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court throws out back-door bid to curb global warming; A coalition of states and conservation groups sought to use public-nuisance law to compel five energy companies to curb greenhouse gases linked to global warming; The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the case.”
And Lawrence Hurley and Gabriel Nelson of Greenwire report that “High Court Blocks States’ Lawsuit Over Coal Plant Emissions” (via The New York Times).
“Supreme Court blocks massive sex-discrimination suit against Wal-Mart”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this news update.
Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update headlined “Court sides with Walmart on sex-bias suit.”
Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court dismisses women’s class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart; The Supreme Court decision, seen as a victory for Wal-Mart and corporate America, makes it more difficult for employees to join together in a common lawsuit unless they are able to identify a common injury.”
And this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Top Court Rules In Favor Of Wal-Mart” featuring Nina Totenberg.
“Supreme Court Limits Public-Employee Grievance Rights”: Mark Walsh has this post at the “School Law” blog of Education Week.
“Death penalty costs California $184 million a year, study says; A senior judge and law professor examine rising costs of the program; Without major reforms, they conclude, capital punishment will continue to exist mostly in theory while exacting an untenable cost”: Carol J. Williams has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
“Merck loses $473M tax appeal in Schering case”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued today.
And Bloomberg News reports that “Merck Can’t Recoup $473 Million in U.S. Income Taxes, Appeals Court Rules.”
“Judges split on ruling on parental discipline; The state high court orders a new trial for a man convicted of assault”: Ken Kobayashi has this article today in The Honolulu Star-Advertiser.
The ruling of the Supreme Court of Hawaii consists of a majority opinion, a concurring opinion, and a dissenting opinion.
“Lawyer can’t wear baseball hat in court”: David L. Hudson Jr. has this report online at the First Amendment Center.
You can access last Thursday’s non-precedential ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.
“Pfizer Rejected By U.S. High Court on $58 Million Prempro Award”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.
Dow Jones Newswires report that “High Court Rejects Wyeth Appeal in Hormone-Therapy Case.”
And Law360 reports that “High Court Allows $58M Award In Wyeth Hormone Drug Suit.”
“Friendship between Thomas and Crow Triggers Controversy — Again”: Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”
“Justices Rule for Wal-Mart in Bias Case”: 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 throws out huge discrimination suit against Wal-Mart; In a 5-4 vote, justices rule that the lawsuit, which claimed that Wal-Mart discriminated against 1.5 million female workers, did not qualify as a class action.”
Joan Bisupic of USA Today has a news update headlined “Supreme Court limits Wal-Mart sex discrimination case.”
And Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers reports that “Supreme Court rules for Wal-Mart in sex bias lawsuit.”
“Wal-Mart Wins Supreme Court Gender-Bias Case”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.
And James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Wal-Mart wins Supreme Court sex-bias case ruling.”
“Wall Street loses appeal on ‘hot news’ lawsuit”: Reuters has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court handed a major defeat to Wall Street banks in ruling that a financial news service did not misappropriate their analyst research for its website.”
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.
Access online today’s Order List and rulings in argued cases of the U.S. Supreme Court: You can access today’s Order List at this link. The Court granted review in four cases. The Court also called for the views of the Solicitor General’s office in one case.
In addition, the Court issued rulings in four argued cases.
1. Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in Turner v. Rogers, No. 10-10. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Antonin Scalia joined in full and in which the Chief Justice and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined in part. You can access the oral argument via this link.
2. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court in American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, No. 10-174. Justice Alito issued an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
3. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court in Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, No. 09-1476. Justice Thomas issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Justice Scalia issued an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. You can access the oral argument via this link.
4. And Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, No. 10-277. Justice Ginsburg issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
In early news coverage, The Associated Press has reports headlined “Supreme Court limits Wal-Mart sex bias case“; “High court blocks states’ climate change lawsuit“; “Court: Public lawyers not required in civil cases“; “Court limits gov’t employees’ speech rights“; “Court to decide if pilot can sue over disclosure“; “High court to hear Montana dams lawsuit“; “Court won’t hear ACORN lawsuit over gov’t funding“; and “High court won’t look at dispute over Sioux land.”
Carter, Phillips on the impact of gender on U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments: Last Wednesday’s edition of The Salt Lake Tribune contained an article headlined “BYU study shows Supreme Court justices aren’t blind to gender; Jurists react differently toward female attorneys, researchers say.”
And The Deseret News reported last Saturday that “Justices act differently for women.”
According to a news release from Brigham Young University, the study — which will appear in the Rutgers Law Journal — was conducted by BYU Communications professor Ed Carter and then-BYU graduate student James Phillips.
What are the odds that academics named Carter and Phillips would study the interaction of U.S. Supreme Court Justices with veteran advocates such as Carter Phillips? Apparently, the answer is 100%.
“Miranda rights for minors: The Supreme Court decided correctly in extending the warning to children questioned by police in school.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
“Alito, Sotomayor give voice to court split”: In Monday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article that begins, “The Supreme Court’s two former prosecutors sit on opposite ends of the court’s long mahogany bench, and they take very different views of the criminal justice system.”
“Stan Chesley stands to lose more than license; Money, influence, image all at stake”: The Cincinnati Enquirer contains this article today.
“Virginia Supreme Court justice selection slowed by stalemate; The House of Delegates and Senate squabble over picking conservative or liberal Supreme Court nominees”: This article appears today in The Roanoke Times.
“Under the U.S. Supreme Court: GPS tracking without a warrant.” Michael Kirkland of UPI has this report.
And yesterday’s edition of The Detroit Free Press contained a somewhat related article headlined “Technology is trampling privacy rights, experts say.”
“Supreme Court heads into final two weeks; Justices are set to hand down decisions in 14 cases involving violent video games, alleged job discrimination at Wal-Mart, generic drugs and other issues”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
Strangest. Play. Ever. Regular readers of this blog may correctly surmise that I attend many baseball games. This evening, my son and I traveled to Judy Johnson Field at Daniel S. Frawley Stadium in Wilmington, Delaware to watch the Wilmington Blue Rocks host the Winston-Salem Dash in a Carolina League contest.
The Dash were trailing 6-2 in the top of the eighth inning when they led off the inning with two singles. At that point, with runners on first and third, the third batter of the inning drew a walk on the 3-2 pitch. The runner on first was running on the pitch that turned out to be ball four. The next thing we knew, the runner who would have reached second on the walk was heading back toward first base when the second baseman received the ball from the pitcher, applied a tag, and the baserunner who had been on first before the batter walked was called out for the first out of the inning.
An article reporting on the outcome of the game available from the web site of the Dash explains that the runner at first base mistakenly thought that the batter had fouled-off the pitch, and the runner was thus returning to first base after having touched second base. Because the ball remained in play, the baserunner could be (and was) tagged out after he touched and then departed from second base.
The Dash did not score in that inning and ended up losing the game by a score of 7-2. You can access the box score at this link, while the play-by-play description (which incorrectly states that the baserunner in question was tagged out trying to go to third) can be accessed here.
Update: My friend Dave S. has forwarded a link to a Baseball Digest article from September 2002 headlined “Baseball rules corner: advancing runner should be wary when ‘ball four’ is called.”
“Friendship of Justice and Magnate Puts Focus on Ethics”: Sunday’s edition of The New York Times will contain a front page article that begins, “Clarence Thomas was here promoting his memoir a few years ago when he bumped into Algernon Varn, whose grandfather once ran a seafood cannery that employed Justice Thomas’s mother as a crab picker.”
“Exasperated Bruno waits for appellate ruling in corruption case; Three-judge federal panel weighs prosecutor’s bid for retrial in corruption case”: The Times Union of Albany, New York contains this article today.
The New York Times reports today that “Bruno Asks Appeals Court to Spare Him Another Trial.”
The New York Post reports that “Bruno bid to ax case doubtful.”
Reuters has a report headlined “No new trial for former state senator, lawyers ask.”
And New York Law Journal reports that “U.S. Rebuts Bruno Argument Against Retrial After ‘Skilling.’”
“Mansfield Ten Commandments battle pitched to U.S. Supreme Court”: This article appeared yesterday in The Mansfield (Ohio) News Journal.
“Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor to throw first pitch Saturday at Cubs-Yankees game”: Lynn Sweet of The Chicago Sun-Times has this report.
“A Watchdog Professor, Now Defending Himself”: In today’s edition of The New York Times, David Carr and John Schwartz have this front page article about the founder of the Medill Innocence Project.
By a vote of 9-7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has denied rehearing en banc of its decision earlier this year upholding the University of Texas’ consideration of race and ethnicity in undergraduate admissions: You can access today’s order denying rehearing en banc, and the opinion dissenting therefrom, at this link.
My earlier coverage of the original three-judge panel’s ruling can be accessed here and here.
