“Prosser not participating in cases because of health issue”: Saturday’s edition of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel will contain an article that begins, “State Supreme Court Justice David Prosser is not participating in any oral arguments this month because of a health issue that is not life-threatening, sources close to Prosser said. That will leave six justices to hear several cases, raising the possibility of 3-3 splits on the deeply divided court. Prosser has not said if he is permanently off the cases, or if he will participate in decisions when he recovers and returns to the bench.”
“U.S. Urges Creativity by Colleges to Gain Diversity”: Saturday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an article that begins, “The Obama administration on Friday urged colleges and universities to get creative in improving racial diversity at their campuses, throwing out a Bush-era interpretation of recent Supreme Court rulings that limited affirmative action in admissions.”
“Oregon Supreme Court orders $99 million award against Philip Morris”: The Oregonian has this news update.
And The Associated Press has an updated report headlined “Oregon court tells Philip Morris to pay judgment.”
My earlier coverage of today’s Oregon Supreme Court ruling appears at this link.
“1st Circuit revives defamation suit against sugar documentary”: Terry Baynes of Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued today.
“Judge reprimanded for belonging to discriminatory club”: Carlyn Kolker of Reuters has this report.
My earlier coverage of yesterday’s amended decision can be accessed here.
“Analysis: Health care’s mandate — Part II.” Lyle Denniston has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”
And James Oliphant of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Kagan, Thomas pressed to stay out of healthcare fight.”
Unanimous Supreme Court of Oregon holds that cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris owes State of Oregon over $99 million representing that state’s statutory share of the punitive damages awarded to the plaintiff in Williams v. Philip Morris Inc. You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Oregon at this link.
According to the court’s media release, “Today, the Oregon Supreme Court held that the State of Oregon did not release its statutory interest in part of the punitive damages awarded to the plaintiff in Williams v. Philip Morris when it and 45 other states entered into a settlement agreement in State v. Philip Morris.”
Update: In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Phillip Morris Oregon court order upheld.”
And Philip Morris USA has issued a news release headlined “Oregon Supreme Court Overturns Lower Court’s Decision in Long-Running Williams Case.”
After receiving complainant’s reconsideration request, the federal judiciary’s Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability issues amended decision characterizing its opinion as a “public reprimand” of judge who belonged to country club that discriminated on the bases of race and sex: I have posted at this link the text of the complainant’s reconsideration request, which I received in a format that does not reveal the complainant’s identity.
Yesterday, in apparent response to that reconsideration request, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States issued an Amended Memorandum of Decision that — unlike the committee’s original decision issued two weeks earlier — expressly characterizes the decision as a “public reprimand” of the judge whose conduct was at issue in the case.
My most recent earlier coverage of this matter can be accessed here and here.
“Cloture filed on Halligan nomination”: According to a post from last night at the web site of the U.S. Senate’s Democrats, “This evening Senator Reid filed cloture on the nomination of Caitlin Joan Halligan, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia. By unanimous consent, at 11am on Tuesday, December 6, there will be 1 hour for debate prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Halligan nomination.”
Update: At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Mike Scarcella has a post titled “Senate Democrats Pushing Caitlin Halligan For D.C. Circuit.”
And Carlyn Kolker of Reuters reports that “DC Circuit nominee Halligan headed for vote showdown.”
“Pay ban on donor organs doesn’t include bone marrow, court says; With marrow now being extracted from the bloodstream, a federal appeals court calls it blood parts, not organ parts; The new reading of the federal prohibition could attract thousands more donors”: Carol J. Williams has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Ninth Circuit ruling appears here and here.
“Senate Declines to Clarify Rights of American Qaeda Suspects Arrested in U.S.” In today’s edition of The New York Times, Charlie Savage has an article that begins, “The Senate on Thursday decided to leave unanswered a momentous question about constitutional rights in the war against Al Qaeda: whether government officials have the power to arrest people inside the United States and hold them in military custody indefinitely and without a trial.”
“The White House needs to come clean on Elena Kagan and the Affordable Care Act”: U.S. Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) has this op-ed today in The Washington Post.
“U.S. Supreme Court to review issue of whether teenage murderers should get life without parole”: This article appears today in The Times-Picayune of New Orleans.
“The Bill of Rights Doesn’t Come Cheap”: Law professor Jeffrey L. Fisher has this op-ed today in The New York Times.
“Komisarjevsky Trial: Closing Arguments Friday; Jury Faces Complex Process Of Life-Or-Death Decision.” This article appears today in The Hartford Courant.
Ariane de Vogue of ABC News is reporting: She has an article headlined “Health Care Law: Does One Supreme Court Justice Hold Its Future?” and a blog post titled “What Do the Supreme Court Justices Think of Cameras in Court?”
“Price-fixing appeals go to top court”: Today’s edition of The Toronto Globe and Mail contains an article that begins, “The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear appeals in two B.C. class-action cases launched against corporate giants on behalf of consumers who allegedly overpaid for computers and soft drinks, in an effort to settle contradictory judgments from lower courts on a key legal issue. The court will weigh in on the question of whether ‘indirect purchasers,’ or consumers who bought computers or soft drinks from retailers, not from manufacturers directly, can sue over price-fixing allegations.”
And The Vancouver Sun reports that “Supreme Court agrees to hear arguments for class action suits on computers, corn syrup.”
