“Schools ask high court review of 2 student online-speech cases”: David L. Hudson Jr. has this news analysis online today at the First Amendment Center.
Earlier this week, at the “School Law” blog of Education Week, Mark Walsh had a post titled “Justices Decline Student Internet Speech Case, Others Await.”
And at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog, Mark Kravets had a post earlier this week titled “Supreme Court Plays Hooky, Leaves Student Online Free Speech Rights Murky.”
“Castille says Family Court probe stays private”: Today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer contains an article that begins, “When a Family Court deal blew up last year, after the payment of millions in fees, Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille hired an investigative consultant and pledged a ‘full public accounting’ of what went wrong. But now, Castille’s lawyer says there will be no report released to the public. Instead, the findings of Chadwick Associates, paid $780,540 so far, will be used to support a lawsuit seeking to recover the lost public money.”
“Hearing Her Story: Women Judges speak from the bench.” Pepperdine Magazine has posted this article online.
You can access at this link the audio of a discussion described as follows: “School of Law dean Deanell Reece Tacha shares memories from the bench with fellow judges Carolyn Dineen King, Dorothy W. Nelson, and Rosemary Barkett in an exclusive interview for Pepperdine Magazine, conducted by Shelley Saxer, professor of law and director of Pepperdine’s Byrne Judicial Clerkship Institute.”
“Canada court ends US bid for terror suspect”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A Canadian indicted in the U.S. on charges he supplied al-Qaida with weapons in Pakistan will not be extradited to the United States after Canada’s Supreme Court said it wouldn’t hear the case.”
And Reuters reports that “Canada high court blocks Khadr extradition to U.S.”
“Wis. chief justice says court drama is in past”: Legal Newsline has this report.
“Not Following the ‘Leader'”: At the “Opinionator” blog of The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse has a post that begins, “Almost everywhere I’ve traveled this fall, people have asked me whether it’s true that Justice Clarence Thomas is the real, if under-appreciated, intellectual leader of the Supreme Court.”
“Same-sex marriage: GOP cites pro-gay psychologist.” In today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “House Republicans defending the federal ban on marital benefits for same-sex couples in a San Francisco court have cited findings by a pro-gay-rights psychologist to support their view that gays and lesbians are not entitled to strong judicial protection from discrimination. But in a sworn declaration this week, psychologist Lisa Diamond said the Republican brief distorted her research on changes in a person’s sexual identification and turned her conclusions upside down.”
“3rd Circuit Throws Out ‘Wardrobe Malfunction’ Fine Against CBS, Again”: Gina Passarella has this article today in The Legal Intelligencer.
At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “‘Wardrobe malfunction’ — Act II.”
And Mark Kernes of AVN News reports that “3rd Circuit Finds In Favor of Janet Jackson’s Tit; Ruling may affect arguments in the upcoming Supreme Court case of Fox Broadcasting v. FCC.”
My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Third Circuit ruling appears at this link.
“Obama nominates Arizona justice to U.S. appeals court; Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew D. Hurwitz is among four nominees to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals facing Senate confirmation”: Carol J. Williams has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
The State Press of Arizona State University reports that “Obama nominates ASU law professor to appeals court.”
And Ginny LaRoe of The Recorder reports that “Obama Nominates Arizona Justice for 9th Circuit Slot.”
“Candidates for Pa. judgeships court Commonwealth voters”: Emilie Lounsberry has this article today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.
“Justice Stevens’ memoir: Modest tone but pointed critiques.” Joan Biskupic of USA Today has this book review.
“Copyright Troll Righthaven Teetering on the Brink”: David Kravets has this post at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog.
“Supreme Court considers role of eyewitness testimony; A defense lawyer asks the justices to establish a stronger legal rule to screen out potentially unreliable testimony before trial, but the high court seems reluctant”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.
Joan Biskupic of USA Today has a news update headlined “Supreme Court examines reliability of eyewitness testimony.”
And online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a Supreme Court dispatch entitled “See No Evil: Eyewitness testimony may be unreliable, but the Supreme Court doesn’t want to be the one to say so.”
“Obama nominates Arizona Supreme Court Justice Hurwitz for 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals”: The Associated Press has this report.
The White House today issued a news release headlined “President Obama Nominates Justice Andrew David Hurwitz to Serve on the United States Court of Appeals.”
And the Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a news release headlined “Arizona Justice Andrew D. Hurwitz Nominated to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.”
You can access the nominee’s online biography at this link.
“Top court hears eyewitness identification case”: James Vicini of Reuters has this report.
Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Justices examine eyewitness identification.”
And Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “No need for new eye witness rule, Supreme Court justices suggest at hearing; The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether judges need to intervene to prevent testimony from unreliable witnesses at criminal trials; The justices indicated that existing safeguards in the justice system are adequate.”
Update: Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post reports that “Supreme Court Looks At Unreliable Eyewitness IDs And Appears To Blink.”
“Supreme Court Looks Again at Methods of D.A.’s Office in Louisiana”: Campbell Robertson and Adam Liptak will have this article Thursday in The New York Times.
“Appeals court urged to make workings more transparent”: Bill Rankin of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a news update that begins, “The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals often hears cases of interest and consequence, yet it is the only federal appeals court in the nation that does not publish its hearing calendar online.”
“Court takes up case on eyewitness identification”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Eyewitnesses discredited? Hardly.”
You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Perry v. New Hampshire, No. 10-8974.
“Clarence Thomas: Court needs to ‘clean up our mess.'” David L. Hudson Jr. has this essay online at the First Amendment Center.
“Appeals court to hear arguments in Bald Knob Cross suit today”: This article appears today in The Southeast Missourian of Cape Girardeau.
According to today’s oral argument list available via the Seventh Circuit’s web site, the three-judge panel assigned to hear and decide the case consists of Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook and Circuit Judges Richard A. Posner and Diane P. Wood.
An early report on this morning’s oral argument from The Associated Press begins, “Judges on a Chicago federal appeals court say even if a giant cross in southern Illinois is a religious symbol, that doesn’t mean the state legislature was wrong to fund part of it.”
Update: You can access the audio of today’s Seventh Circuit oral argument via this link (5.71MB mp3 audio file).
“Appeals panel sides with CBS over Super Bowl fine”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld its finding that the Federal Communications Commissions acted improperly in fining CBS over the fleeting exposure of Janet Jackson’s breast during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.”
Bloomberg News reports that “CBS Ruling on Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl Exposure Upheld by Appeals Court.”
And Reuters reports that “CBS wins Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction ruling.”
You can access today’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at this link.
“Lawsuit raises the Ricci spectre”: Today’s edition of The Yale Daily News contains an article that begins, “Only a few months after the finalization of a settlement to a New Haven firefighter-filed lawsuit that reached the Supreme Court, the same department is causing another legal headache for the city.”
“Woman gets 10 years in courthouse bombing”: Today in The San Diego Union-Tribune, Greg Moran has an article that begins, “The woman who admitted setting off a powerful pipe bomb in front of the federal courthouse in downtown San Diego more than three years ago was sentenced to 10 years in prison.”
“Should eye witnesses have to pass a test? Supreme Court to decide; The Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday on whether testimony from unreliable witnesses should be barred from criminal trials, or whether the trial process itself makes clear if testimony is reliable.” Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.
“Ramos defends anti-animal cruelty law”: The Press-Enterprise of Riverside, California today contains an article that begins, “San Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramos came out Tuesday in defense of a California law at the center of an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case, describing the challenge to the statute banning the slaughter of certain animals as a potential threat to state authority.”
“Durham to retire from Oregon Supreme Court; It will be the first time in almost 25 years that two seats will be decided by election”: This article appears today in The Statesman Journal of Salem, Oregon.
“Health law ruling could be political earthquake”: Politico.com has this report.
“Alabama AG expects U.S. Supreme Court showdown over immigration law”: The Birmingham News contains this article today.
“Castille sues lawyer, firm over Family Court deal”: Today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer contains an article that begins, “Pennsylvania’s chief justice sued his once-trusted attorney and a prominent Philadelphia law firm Tuesday, saying he was misled into paying millions in unnecessary fees for the Family Court building project.”
“High court case on GPS surveillance could break new ground”: Joan Biskupic will have this article Wednesday in USA Today.
“Supreme Court vs. 9th Circuit: Roberts Defends Scalia’s Honor As Justices Ready To Reverse Case.” Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post has this report.
“October is banner month for judge confirmations”: Reuters has a report that begins, “The Senate last month confirmed 15 nominees to the federal bench, the busiest month so far this year.”
“Court upholds convictions of 5 in Fla. terror plot”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued today.
“You Call That a Trial? A Costly Superior Court Waiver Ruling.” The April 2011 installment of my “Upon Further Review” column published by The Legal Intelligencer, Pennsylvania’s daily newspaper for lawyers, reporting on the Pa. Superior Court‘s ruling in Newman Development Group of Pottstown LLC v. Genuardi’s Family Market Inc.
Today, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued an order granting allowance of appeal in the case.
“Kerry asks Congress to pay alleged Bulger victims”: The AP has a report that begins, “Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts asked Congress on Tuesday to circumvent a federal appeals court decision and approve $8.5 million in payments to the families of two men who allegedly died at the hands of former Boston mob boss James ‘Whitey’ Bulger.”
My recent coverage of this matter can be accessed here, here, and here.
