“Exhibit A in 4th Amendment privacy cases: technology; Fourth Amendment rulings since 1967 have significantly limited what people can expect to keep private; This shift has accelerated as technology such as smartphones and GPS have emerged.” Carol J. Williams has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Police GPS Device Use Triggers Privacy Clash at U.S. High Court.”
And at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog, David Kravets has a post titled “Feds Seek Unfettered GPS Surveillance Power as Location-Tracking Flourishes.”
“Court hears challenge to assisted-suicide law”: In Monday’s edition of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Bill Rankin and Jeffry Scott will have an article that begins, “Georgia’s highest court on Monday will hear a challenge that seeks to strike down the state’s assisted-suicide law, passed by the Legislature almost two decades ago to punish people like the late Jack Kevorkian who helped people kill themselves.”
“Justices Weigh Privacy vs. GPS Bugs”: Jess Bravin will have this article Monday in The Wall Street Journal.
You can freely access the full text of the article via Google News.
“California Supreme Court tackles workplace break rules”: Howard Mintz will have this article Monday in The San Jose Mercury News.
“O’Connor breaks ground again, this time as a former Supreme Court justice”: Robert Barnes will have this article Monday in The Washington Post.
“State voters get say on judges’ retirement age”: Jim Provance has this article today in The Toledo Blade.
“U.S. Supreme Court to decide where Jewish boy was born”: Harriet Robbins Ost of United Press International has this report.
Michael Kirkland of UPI is reporting: Today, he has articles headlined “Thomas spanks court on religious displays” and “Plea bargains, through a glass darkly.”
“U.S. Supreme Court to consider claim that evidence was withheld in 1995 quintuple murder case”: John Simerman of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans has this news update.
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument preview: The Court and the D.A. — again.”
“Argument preview: High-tech policing.” Lyle Denniston has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”
And Sunday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an editorial entitled “The Court’s GPS Test.”
“States’ grandparent visitation laws raise concern”: The Associated Press has this report.
“Edging Toward Equality”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial that begins, “On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee began consideration of a measure that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, the deplorable 1996 law that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and denies lawfully married same-sex couples benefits granted other married couples, including Social Security survivor payments and unpaid leave to care for a seriously ill spouse.”
Dahlia Lithwick reviews “Five Chiefs: A Supreme Court Memoir,” by retired Justice John Paul Stevens: You can access the book review, which will appear in Sunday’s edition of The Washington Post, at this link.
“9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says Portland judge wrongly dismissed Lukus Glenn family lawsuit against Washington County”: This article appears today in The Oregonian. In addition, columnist Steve Duin has an essay entitled “The Ninth Circuit decision: Finally, a small step down the road to justice for Lukus Glenn.”
And The Beaverton Valley Times reports that “Appeals court sends Lukus Glenn wrongful death case back to trial; Ninth Circuit ruling says questions about use of deadly force should be presented to a jury.”
My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Ninth Circuit ruling appears at this link.
“Pursuing a Piracy Claim Against Apple”: John Schwartz has this article today in The New York Times.
“Antiabortion movement hoping for electoral victory in Miss.” Saturday’s edition of The Washington Post will contain this article.
And Saturday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times will contain an article headlined “Mississippi attempts to define the start of personhood; A state initiative would ban all abortions; But opponents of the ballot measure say it would also ban many birth control pills and hamper popular infertility treatments, claims proponents are calling ‘scare tactics.’”
“Life Sentence for Possession of Child Pornography Spurs Debate Over Severity”: This article will appear Saturday in The New York Times.
“Showdown over Los Angeles courthouse in Congress”: Reuters has this report.
Now tell us how you really feel! On occasion, this blog will draw attention to particularly forceful or passionate dissenting opinions. Fifth Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith issued one such dissent, from a denial of rehearing en banc, on Wednesday of this week. The order denying rehearing en banc and Judge Smith’s dissent therefrom were posted to the Fifth Circuit’s web site yesterday.
Judge Smith’s dissenting opinion begins, “This case was lawyered poorly on both sides, but never mind: In an exercise of raw advocacy for one party over another, this panel has come to the rescue of Morgan Swindle, who was properly kicked out of school after smoking dope, at the expense of Superintendent Randy Pope, who did nothing wrong but is now personally on the line for money damages.”
And the dissenting opinion concludes some 15 pages later, “The panel opinion is a shameless exercise in appellate advocacy on behalf of an undeserving party at the expense of a well-intentioned school official who has done no wrong. I respectfully dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc.”
As for those who would accuse the Fifth Circuit of sometimes taking too long to decide a case, Judge Smith unquestionably agrees, writing in footnote two of his dissent: “The panel, without explanation, took more than two years after oral argument to issue its opinion. That is a disservice to the litigants and to the fair administration of justice.”
According to the order denying rehearing en banc, a total of five judges voted in favor of full court review, which is particularly noteworthy given that the losing side’s attorneys, to again quote Judge Smith’s dissent, “made the error of requesting only panel rehearing, making it less likely that the matter would attract the full attention of the en banc court.”
You can access the original three-judge panel’s ruling at this link.
“Police GPS tracking case to be heard by Supreme Court”: James Vicini of Reuters has this report.
“Supreme Court Justice opens up to law school on the stability of statutes”: The GW Hatchet has a blog post that begins, “Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia highlighted the importance of impartiality and consistency in judicial decision-making during the kickoff to a two-day GW Law School symposium at the Jack Morton Auditorium Thursday.”
“The standoff lasted 4 minutes, but the questions go on and on: The police shooting of Lukus Glenn, 18, has both loved ones and authorities trying to find answers.” This article appeared in the September 24, 2006 issue of The Oregonian.
Today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a federal district court’s entry of summary judgment against the mother’s lawsuit alleging a state law wrongful death claim and a federal civil rights claim for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. You can access today’s ruling at this link.
The Oregonian has collected some of its earlier coverage of the shooting and the events leading up to the lawsuit at this link.
“Court Casts Doubt on Race-Conscious Student Assignment Plan”: At the “School Law” blog of Education Week, Mark Walsh has this post on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued yesterday.
“Preview: Justices to debate passports and presidential power.” Bill Mears of CNN.com has this report.
Update: And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument preview: No Mideast peace over this.”
“Verdict on courthouse name is near; Rep. Higgins, judges back high court’s Robert Jackson for honor over two others”: The Buffalo News contains this article today.
“Federal courthouse plan in L.A. meets opposition; A Republican congressman from California’s Central Valley has introduced a bill to sell the vacant site for $25 million; State Democrats are trying to save the long-awaited project”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
“State executions to remain on hold another year”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.
In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, Carol J. Williams reports that “California lethal injections on hold for another year; Lawyers for the state and for death row prisoners agree to report to a judge on new lethal injection procedures by Sept. 15, 2012.”
And Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “No California executions in 2012 as legal battle over lethal injection continues.”
“Feds Drop Plan to Lie in Public-Record Act Requests”: At Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog, David Kravets has a post that begins, “Bowing to political pressure, the Justice Department abruptly dropped proposed revisions to Freedom of Information Act rules Thursday that would have authorized the government to inform the public that requested records do not exist even if they do.”
“An interview with Justice Stevens”: “SCOTUSblog” has this post.
“When the supreme court won’t hear: Despite commendable openness, we still don’t know how and why the court decides to decline to hear two-thirds of applications.” Robert Hazell and Graham Gee have this op-ed today in The Guardian (UK).
“Justice Ginsburg: A clean bill of health.” Joan Biskupic of USA Today has this blog post.
“Occupy Supreme Court: Could it happen? Protests and demonstrations, such as the Occupy movement, are banned on the plaza in front of the Supreme Court — even though the high court is the institution overseeing the First Amendment.” The Christian Science Monitor has this report.
“Strip-Search Lawyers Air Dirty Linen; Team Feuded Over Appealing Case to High Court, Endangering Lucrative Legal Niche”: In Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin will have an article that begins, “A Supreme Court case testing whether jails can strip-search every arrestee has provoked a bitter clash between two headstrong lawyers–on the same side.”
You can freely access the full text of the article via Google News.
“Judges who will hear arguments on GHG rules have history with global warming”: Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire has an article that begins, “The three [D.C. Circuit] judges who will assess the legality of U.S. EPA rules aimed at regulating greenhouse gas emissions have a history when it comes to climate change.”
“Insurers Seek to Avoid ‘Worst of All Worlds’ in Health-Care Case”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.
