“Court backs district on teacher’s religious banners”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.
The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Court says teacher has no right to banners referring to God; San Diego-area high school math instructor claimed his 1st Amendment rights were violated when the principal ordered him to take down banners he saw as celebrating America’s religious heritage.”
Greg Moran of The San Diego Union-Tribune has an article headlined “Federal court: Teacher can’t refer to ‘God’ in classroom banners.”
The North County Times reports that “Appeals court rules against teacher who posted banners containing ‘God.’”
And Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “‘God Bless America’? Not in high school math class, US judges rule; A US appeals court in California says a public high school teacher has no constitutional right to display posters in his math class preaching his ‘views on the role of God in our nation’s history.’”
You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.
“Justice Department: High court should overturn ruling against PPL Montana.” This article appears today in The Missoulian of Missoula, Montana.
“Pa. Supreme Court in Phila. for video debut”: Emilie Lounsberry of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this news update.
“Appeals Court Warms to EPA’s Revised ‘Hot Spot’ Rule”: Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire has this report (via The New York Times).
“Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to Honor Memory of Senior Judge Thomas G. Nelson”: The Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this news release today.
“Protect Our Right to Anonymity”: In today’s edition of The New York Times, law professor Jeffrey Rosen has an op-ed that begins, “In November, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that could redefine the scope of privacy in an age of increasingly ubiquitous surveillance technologies like GPS devices and face-recognition software.”
“The Unconstitutionality of Supreme Court Recusal Standards”: Law professor Louis J. Virelli III has posted this article online at SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog”).
“N.J. federal appeals court panel puts Carl Lewis back on ballot for state Senate race”: The Newark Star-Ledger has this news update.
And The Associated Press reports that “Carl Lewis back on ballot in NJ senate race.”
You can access today’s order of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at this link.
“It’s a New Day for Openness in the Pa. Appellate Courts”: Today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer — Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers — contains this month’s installment of my “Upon further Review” column.
“Supreme Court is asked about jails’ blanket strip-search policies”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post.
“Obama increases number of female, minority judges”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “President Barack Obama is moving at a historic pace to try to diversify the nation’s federal judiciary: Nearly three of every four people he has gotten confirmed to the federal bench are women or minorities. He is the first president who hasn’t selected a majority of white males for lifetime judgeships.”
“Conference Approves Standards & Procedures for Sealing Civil Cases”: The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has just issued this news release.
The Associated Press has a report headlined “Judges: Too many civil cases kept secret.”
And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Mike Scarcella has a post titled “Judicial Conference Urges Restraint In Sealing Civil Cases.”
Programming note: On Tuesday morning, I will be arguing two unrelated cases before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which will he holding a special sitting at Old City Hall in Philadelphia. The location is noteworthy, among other reasons, because the U.S. Supreme Court once held its oral arguments there.
Tomorrow’s oral arguments will also be noteworthy because they will be the first Pa. Supreme Court oral arguments that will be televised. Tomorrow’s oral arguments will appear on the Pennsylvania Cable Network tomorrow night, as detailed here.
In news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Pa high court to meet in historic chamber.”
The briefs that I filed in the cases that I will be arguing tomorrow are available online via earlier posts that you can access here and here.
For those who contend that arguing two different cases on appeal in the same morning is no big deal, apparently Pennsylvania’s state appellate court system would agree with you. I say that because the Superior Court of Pennsylvania scheduled for oral argument tomorrow morning a third case (background available here) in which I wrote the brief for appellee. Plaintiff’s lead trial lawyer will be arguing that appeal on plaintiff’s behalf.
Additional posts will appear here on Tuesday afternoon.
Update: I am pleased to report that both oral arguments went very well. Of course, if you receive Pennsylvania Cable Network. you can tune in beginning at 7 p.m. eastern time this (Tuesday) evening to see for yourself.
“State Supreme Court dispute may be tough to decide”: The Wisconsin State Journal has an article that begins, “Although a special prosecutor decided not to bring criminal charges in the June 13 altercation between two state Supreme Court justices, a disciplinary panel continues to investigate.”
And Adam Cohen of Time magazine has an essay entitled “Justice on Display: Should Judges Deliberate in Public?”
“Justice O’Connor says public lacks understanding of judiciary”: The Gainesville Sun has this news update.
“Anita Hill to speak out on 20th anniversary of hearings”: Josh Gerstein has this post at his “Under the Radar” blog at Politico.com.
“Ruling: Recalculate court costs for cheerleader.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “An appeals court on Monday ordered a lower court to recalculate how much a former Texas high school cheerleader should pay in legal fees to the school district that punished for refusing to root for an athlete she said raped her.”
You can access today’s non-precedential ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.
“5th Circuit Chief Judge Takes U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks to Task in an Email”: John Council of Texas Lawyer has this report.
“Are judicial nomination battles damaging our democracy?” Former Third Circuit Judge Timothy K. Lewis has this post online at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.
“Retired Justice David H. Souter, ‘the luckiest guy,’ returns to his books”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post.
“Sen. Tom Coburn blocked attempt to fill federal appeals court vacancy, Oklahoma attorneys say; The Democratic White House is struggling to find federal nominees that satisfy Oklahoma’s conservative senators”: This article appears today in The Oklahoman.
“On 9/11: Boumediene defense goes on.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
“How 9/11 Completely Changed Surveillance in U.S.” Ryan Singel has this post today at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog.
“Manhattan Court Staff Recalls Life After Bodies Fell From Sky on Sept. 11”: Bloomberg News has this report.
“Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Can U.S. law punish a theft of honor?” Michael Kirkland of UPI has this report.
“Court Case Asks if ‘Big Brother’ Is Spelled GPS”: Adam Liptak will have this article Sunday in The New York Times.
“Federal court upholds Wisconsin graduations in church”: The Associated Press has this report.
My earlier coverage of today’s Seventh Circuit ruling appears at this link.
“Appeals court to review repeal of Michigan’s affirmative action ban”: The Detroit Free Press has a news update that begins, “A federal appeals court has agreed to reconsider its July ruling that struck down the state ban on racial preferences in public education, state Attorney General Bill Schuette announced Friday afternoon.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Court to look at Mich. affirmative action ban.”
“Okla. anti-Shariah amendment heads to appeals court”: Religion News Service has this report (via The Washington Post).
Majority on divided three-judge Seventh Circuit panel rules that public school district’s practice of holding high school graduation ceremonies and related events at a Christian church rented for the occasion does not violate the Establishment Clause: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link.
“President Obama Nominates Stephanie Dawn Thacker to Serve on US Circuit Court of Appeals”: Yesterday, The White House issued a news release that begins, “Today, President Obama nominated Stephanie Dawn Thacker to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.”
The West Virginia Record reports that “Thacker officially nominated by Obama.”
The State Journal reports that “Charleston Lawyer Nominated to Serve on 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.”
West Virginia MetroNews reports that “Charleston Attorney Nominated for Federal Judgeship.”
And The Associated Press reports that “W.Va. lawyer nominated to federal appeals court.”
“Virginia court rejects two challenges to Obama’s healthcare law; The appeals court says the dispute over whether the government can require Americans to buy medical insurance should be delayed until the first taxpayers have to pay the penalty for not buying coverage”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
The Washington Post reports today that “Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli’s health-care lawsuit dismissed by 4th Circuit.”
The Wall Street Journal reports that “Court Upholds Health Law.”
The Washington Times reports that “Court dismisses Virginia challenge to Obama health reform.”
Jim Nolan of The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that “Judges dismiss Virginia’s challenge to health-care law.”
The Virginian-Pilot reports that “Appeals court dismisses Va. suits on health care act.”
The Roanoke Times reports that “3 judges side with Obama rather than Virginia in health care decision; The appeals panel said Virginia has no standing to sue over the new federal health care law.”
The Free Lance-Star of Fredericksburg, Virginia reports that “Appeals court turns down Virginia’s health care lawsuits.”
And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Health-Care Ruling May Delay Final Answer From U.S. High Court.”
“Are our justices bought and paid for?” Today in The Chicago Tribune, Bert Brandenburg has an op-ed that begins, “These days, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is looking a lot like Congress: fractious, dysfunctional and awash in special-interest cash. The Wisconsin story has important implications for courts in the Midwest and around the country.”
“Granting personhood to fetuses will be on Miss. ballot”: This article appears today in The Washington Times.
The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi reports today that “Initiatives OK’d for Nov. election; Court paves the way for future challenges.”
And The Associated Press reports that “State Supreme Court OKs eminent domain, personhood ballot initiatives.”
Three-judge Ninth Circuit panel issues unpublished opinion because “[t]he panel finds that a published opinion might cast unjust aspersions upon those not before the court”: A longtime reader emails:
Here’s something I haven’t seen before. The Ninth Circuit today overturned a manslaughter conviction, 2-1, in an unpublished decision, stating that a published opinion “might cast unjust aspersions on parties not before the court.” Putting aside the significance of the case, which is described in the article linked below, I’ve never seen that rationale cited before as a basis for not publishing a decision, and a quick Westlaw search revealed no other cases justifying an unpublished decision on like grounds. And the panel must know that an unpublished decision is going to be available on Lexis and Westlaw, and also will be published in the Federal Appendix.
The article to which the email refers is a news update written by Greg Moran of The San Diego Union-Tribune headlined “Appeals court rules for new trial in Stephanie Crowe killing.”
You can access today’s non-precedential ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.
