“Hyperlinking doesn’t constitute defamation, Supreme Court rules”: Kirk Makin of The Toronto Globe and Mail has this news update.
The Toronto Star has a news update headlined “Supreme Court ruling big victory for Internet freedom.”
The Toronto Sun has a news update headlined “Top court rules web links not illegal.”
Postmedia News reports that “Web hyperlinks aren’t publication of defamatory text, court rules.”
And at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog, David Kravets has a post titled “Supreme Court of Canada OKs Internet Linking.”
You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada at this link.
“Viacom Replaces Superstar Lawyer on Eve of YouTube Appeal; Former solicitor general Ted Olson doesn’t attend a key appeal court hearing after Viacom chooses Paul Smith to handle oral arguments”: Online at The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has this post at the “Hollywood, Esq.” blog.
“Uneven Stevens: The former justice’s outbursts are doing a disservice to the Supreme Court.” Law professor Richard A. Epstein has this essay online at the “Defining Ideas” web site of the Hoover Institution.
“Citigroup wins in employees’ stock drop appeal”: Reuters has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court said Citigroup Inc was not liable to thousands of workers who said it should not have offered bank stock in its retirement plans because it knew the stock was a bad investment.”
You can access today’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.
“Anita Hill Defends Her Legacy: Two decades after her seismic testimony, she doesn’t shy away from talking about it.” Cynthia Gordy has this essay online at The Root.
“Gentle grilling of top court appointees not to everyone’s taste”: Kirk Makin has this article today in The Toronto Globe and Mail.
“Supreme Court decision could force Florida’s police to get a warrant to secretly install GPS trackers; Right now, they don’t have to get a warrant, but many agencies say they do anyway”: This article appears today in The South Florida Sun-Sentinel.
“Ogoni Leader Welcomes U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Shell Case; Movement for Survival of Ogoni People president Ledum Mitee says the court’s decision sends a message that Shell must be held to account”: Voice of America has this report.
And in related coverage, Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire reports that “Oil companies on alert as justices take up int’l human rights case.”
“Supreme Court to hear Landings gator attack case”: This article appears today in The Savannah Morning News.
“Obama Lawyers Urge Court to Limit Scope of Health-Care Case”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.
“Here come the judges? Maybe not.” In Wednesday’s edition of The Washington Post, Al Kamen’s “In the Loop” column will begin, “Hoping for a White House nomination to the federal bench? Already in the pipeline? Either way, you may not want to get measured for those new black robes just yet.”
“Scalia offers ruling: Deep dish v. thin crust?” Abdon M. Pallasch of The Chicago Sun-Times has this news update.
“Vt. gov nominates Robinson to Supreme Court”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Gov. Peter Shumlin on Tuesday nominated to the state Supreme Court a Vermont lawyer who championed marriage rights for gays and lesbians and is now his general counsel.”
The official news release from Vermont’s Governor is headlined “Gov. Shumlin taps Beth Robinson to serve on Supreme Court.”
“Viacom: YouTube Willfully Violated Copyrights.” Bloomberg News has this report.
The Associated Press has a report headlined “Viacom to NY court: Scrap YouTube copyright ruling.”
c|net News reports that “Viacom gets another shot in court against YouTube.”
And Variety reports that “Viacom, Google clash in court; Media conglom seeks reversal in DMCA case.”
Update: In other coverage, Reuters reports that “Appeals court zeroes in on Viacom-YouTube dispute.”
“Stolen Valor case: False speech may leave some justices cold.” Tony Mauro has this news analysis online at the First Amendment Center.
“Attorney Paul J. Watford Nominated to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals”: The Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued this news release.
“Florida Supreme Court to Decide If Noise Limits on Car Stereos Is Unconstitutional; Two Florida men pulled over for violating car stereo noise ordinances say the law violates their civil rights — and the state Supreme Court is listening”: NBC Miami has this report.
“Harper’s picks highlight new direction for Supreme Court”: Kirk Makin has this article today in The Toronto Globe and Mail.
And today’s edition of The Toronto Star contains profiles of the two nominees headlined “From waitress to the highest court” and “Moldaver ‘a force to be reckoned with.’”
“Obama nominates L.A. lawyer to 9th Circuit; The choice of Paul Watford for the overburdened federal appeals court draws praise from both sides of the political aisle; Some see a smoother path for him to Senate confirmation”: Carol J. Williams has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
And Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports today that “Paul Watford nominated to federal appeals court.”
Yesterday, the White House issued a news release headlined “President Obama Nominates Paul J. Watford to Serve on the United States Court of Appeals.”
“Chief judges’ message: Shut up.” Yesterday, Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle had a blog post that begins, “A federal appeals court judge becomes the court’s chief judge because of seniority, not diplomatic skills, a fact that was painfully obvious recently in a pair of appellate circuits.”
“9th Circuit finds police stun gun use excessive in 2 cases; The ruling could prompt police to reexamine rules and practices for the temporarily debilitating weapons”: Today in The Los Angeles Times, Carol J. Williams has an article that begins, “Police used excessive force when they fired Tasers at a pregnant woman in Seattle and a victim of domestic abuse in Maui, a federal appeals court ruled Monday in a case that could influence how police handle those resisting arrest across the West.”
Denny Walsh and Sam Stanton of The Sacramento Bee report today that “9th Circuit issues mixed ruling on Taser use.”
The Seattle Times reports that “Appeals court takes aim at cops’ Taser use.”
And Ginny LaRoe of The Recorder reports that “Circuit Faults Tasings, But Says Officers Can’t Be Sued.”
My earlier coverage of yesterday’s en banc Ninth Circuit ruling appears here and here.
“Supreme Court takes dispute over lying about war heroism”: Joan Biskupic of USA Today has this news update.
Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers has an article headlined “Does Constitution allow lying about military heroism? Supreme Court to decide.”
Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Justices to hear case over lying about receiving military medals.”
And Ariane de Vogue of ABC News has a blog post titled “Supreme Court to Rule on Constitutionality of Stolen Valor Act.”
Canada’s The National Post is reporting: A news update is headlined “Harper nominates two Ontario justices to Supreme Court.”
Profiles of the nominees are headlined “Karakatsanis: Supreme Court’s new trend-bucking wild card” and “Moldaver: Some star power for our top court.”
And an editorial is entitled “A land without Borking.”
“Appeals court ruling in Maui case says Taser use should be restricted”: Ken Kobayashi of The Honolulu Star-Advertiser has this news update.
And Carol J. Williams of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Stun-gun use in Seattle, Maui cases was excessive, court says.”
My earlier coverage of today’s en banc Ninth Circuit ruling appears at this link.
“From OWS to OSCOTUS: As Occupy Wall Street protesters look to the Supreme Court, they’ll find more to be outraged about than the Citizens United case.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Supreme Court mulling if highway crosses case will be argued”: The Salt Lake Tribune has this news update.
“Judges skeptical of Stevens-case prosecutors’ arguments on contempt”: At his “Under the Radar” blog at Politico.com, Josh Gerstein has this post reporting on an oral argument that occurred this afternoon before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
“Supreme Court to Hear 2 Human Rights Cases”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.
Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post reports that “Supreme Court To Rule On Corporate Personhood For Crimes Against Humanity.”
And Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight reports that “SCOTUS to decide if corps. liable for torturing aliens, citizens.”
“Cornel West won’t face charges after DC arrest”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Author and civil rights activist Cornel West and 18 others arrested with him for protesting at the U.S. Supreme Court will not be prosecuted.”
“PM taps Ontario judges Karakatsanis, Moldaver for Supreme Court”: Kirk Makin of The Toronto Globe and Mail has this news update.
And CBC News reports that “Supreme Court judge nominees named by Harper.”
“Off-campus online student speech case is appealed to high court”: David L. Hudson Jr. has this news analysis online at the First Amendment Center.
“Justice Thomas Holds Firm Views on Youths’ Rights”: Mark Walsh has this article (pass-through link) in the current issue of Education Week.
“These cases present questions about whether the use of a taser to subdue a suspect resulted in the excessive use of force and whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.” So begins the majority opinion that a ten-judge en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.
“Renewed probe into anthrax killings called unlikely”: McClatchy Newspapers, ProPublica, and PBS’ “Frontline” have this report.
“Free speech vs. lying? Supreme Court to rule on Stolen Valor Act.” David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Supreme Court to review free speech issue on lying about military honors.”
Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Free speech or just a lie? Supreme Court takes case on Medal of Honor claim; The Supreme Court will take the case of a man who lied about receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor; The question is whether the US can punish him for false statements about his military service.”
And at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog, David Kravets has a post titled “High Court to Decide Legality of Lying About Military Service.”
