“Court dismisses charges of computer-file pilfering”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this news update.
Bloomberg News reports that “Checking Facebook at Work Isn’t Crime, Appeals Court Rules.”
And at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog, David Kravets has a post titled “Court Rebukes DOJ, Says Hacking Required to be Prosecuted as Hacker.”
My earlier coverage of today’s en banc Ninth Circuit ruling appears here and here.
Update: Ginny LaRoe of The Recorder reports that “With 9-2 Ruling, Circuit Narrows Scope of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.”
Congratulations to “The Volokh Conspiracy” blog on the occasion of its ten-year anniversary today! As noted here.
The “How Appealing” blog, by contrast, was fashionably late to the party and thus won’t be celebrating its tenth anniversary until May 6, 2012.
“I Say Dissental, You Say Concurral”: The Yale Law Journal Online has today posted this essay written by Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and attorney James Burnham.
“Court hears case of fired Fla. teacher”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, ” After fourth-grade teacher Jarretta Hamilton went to the principal of her Christian school with the news she was pregnant, he responded: You’re fired. Her lawsuit against the school came before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, and the three-judge panel is wrestling with its decision.”
“Federal anti-hacking prosecutions reined in by appeals court ruling”: Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News has this update.
My earlier coverage of today’s en banc Ninth Circuit ruling can be accessed here.
Update: In other coverage, Terry Baynes and Jonathan Stempel of Reuters report that “Court narrows reach of computer fraud law.”
“Fired SEC lawyer wins reversal in case over emails; Trial lawyer Jeffrey Norris had been fired in 2009; One email to Washington Post, another had secret report; Earlier emails questioned Mark Cuban’s patriotism; US appeals court says new evidence should be reviewed”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has a report that begins, “A longtime U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission trial lawyer who was fired for sending inappropriate emails deserves a chance to get his job back by presenting medical evidence that those actions won’t happen again, a federal appeals court ruled.”
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit at this link.
“U.S. court rules Pfizer can face some asbestos suits”: Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.
“DOJ Urges D.C. Circuit to Support Cigarette Graphic Warning Labels”: Mike Scarcella has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Court weighs graphic health warnings on cigarettes.”
“Many employers have adopted policies prohibiting the use of work computers for nonbusiness purposes. Does an employee who violates such a policy commit a federal crime? How about someone who violates the terms of service of a social networking website?” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today has issued its en banc ruling in United States v. Nosal. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote the majority opinion.
My earlier coverage of the case appears here, here, and here.
“Supreme Court misunderstanding on health overhaul?” The Associated Press has this report.
“First Amendment lawyer heads to Guantanamo to challenge closures; A consortium of media companies, including The Miami Herald, is protesting the Department of Defense decision to keep secret testimony regarding the detention and treatment of the alleged planner of the attack on the USS Cole”: Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has this report.
“Circuit Sides with Anti-Bush Protesters Moved by Secret Service”: Ginny LaRoe of The Recorder has this article reporting on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.
“False Equivalence Watch, Judiciary Edition: President Obama tried one kind of attack on judicial independence; The Republican candidates have been trying another. Both are bad — but one is worse.” Andrew Cohen has this essay online at The Atlantic.
“The University of Minnesota and the Supreme Court: too close for comfort? The University of Minnesota has two cases in the state Supreme Court this year — for both, more than half of the justices won’t have a say because of University-related conflicts of interest.” Minnesota Daily contains this article today.
“Federal Court To Weigh Graphic Cigarette Labels”: This audio segment appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”
And today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial entitled “Bogus Challenge to Cigarette Warnings.”
“Bring the Justices Back to Earth”: Law professor Paul D. Carrington has this op-ed today in The New York Times.
“Appeals court calls Iowa method to vet justices acceptable; Lawyers are in better position to evaluate nominees than the public, 8th Circuit says”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued yesterday.
“Rosetta Stone Trademark Claims Against Google Revived”: Bloomberg News has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued yesterday.
