“Court nixes Montana’s ban on political endorsements of judicial candidates”: The Missoulian has this news update.
The Billings Gazette has a news update headlined “Federal appeals court strikes down ban on endorsements in judicial races.”
And Bloomberg News reports that “Montana Rule Banning Party Endorsements of Judges Blocked.”
The ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued late yesterday consisted of a majority opinion and a dissenting opinion.
“Texas town’s rental ban to get second hearing”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A Dallas suburb’s long, expensive fight to ban illegal immigrants from renting homes will get perhaps its most important hearing Wednesday before a largely conservative group of judges with the power to influence the national immigration debate.”
The case is scheduled for reargument en banc tomorrow in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
“‘We Won in Our Effort to Preserve the Constitution’: Legal scholar Randy Barnett on why the Supreme Court ObamaCare decision isn’t as bad as you think.” Damon W. Root has this interview in the October 2012 issue of Reason magazine.
“Appeals court reverses ruling on campaign donors”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “An appeals court on Tuesday reversed a lower court ruling that likely would have led to greater disclosure of who is paying for certain election ads.”
Bloomberg News reports that “Court Reinstates Rule on ‘Issue-Ad’ Donors’ Secrecy.”
And David Ingram of Reuters reports that “Appeals court says tax-exempt groups can keep donors secret.”
You can access today’s five-page judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.
“Obama Visitor Logs Must Be Public, Lawyer Tells Court”: Tom Schoenberg of Bloomberg News has a report that begins, “The names of people vetted by the U.S. Secret Service for White House visits are agency records that must be made public, a lawyer for Judicial Watch Inc. told a federal appeals court in Washington.”
“Justice Clarence Thomas and CAC’s Akhil Amar debate past, present, and future of our Constitution”: The video of this recent discussion can now be viewed online, on-demand via YouTube at this link.
“Pa. Supreme Court orders more review on voter ID law”: The Philadelphia Inquirer has a news update that begins, “The Supreme Court has ordered that the state’s controversial new voter ID law be returned to a lower court for a speedy hearing on how the state is implementing it to ensure all voters have access to appropriate state-issued photo identification. The decision was 4-2, with Justices Seamus McCaffery and Debra McCloskey Todd dissenting.”
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a news update headlined “Pennsylvania Supreme Court sends Voter ID back to lower court.”
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has a news update headlined “State Supreme Court sends voter ID case back to Commonwealth Court for review.”
The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has a news update headlined “Voter ID law in limbo after Pa. Supreme Court sends case back to lower court.”
Bloomberg News reports that “Pennsylvania Supreme Court Sets Aside Voter-ID Ruling.”
Reuters reports that “Pennsylvania Supreme Court returns voter ID case to lower court.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Pa. high court wants review of voter ID access.”
Today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania consists of a per curiam order and two dissenting statements (here and here).
“U.S. wins temporary freeze of military detention order”: Reuters has this report on an order that a single judge serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued yesterday.
And the blog “Lawfare,” which posted the order, provides this coverage.
Update: In other coverage, Bloomberg News reports that “Obama Administration Wins Stay of Detention Law Rejection.”
“Last Chapter for a Court With a Place in History”: In today’s edition of The New York Times, Campbell Robertson has an article that begins, “Across the street from a barbershop and upstairs from a post office sits a big empty room where Mississippi once began to face up to itself. Even on a steamy humdrum Thursday afternoon, this city’s stately federal courtroom looks like the kind of place where momentous things could happen, as they once did.”
“Fanning furor, Justice Scalia says appeals court judge lied”: Terry Baynes of Reuters has this report.
The Associated Press reports that “Justice Scalia says criticism of ‘politicized’ Supreme Court ‘enrages’ him.”
The Hill has a blog post titled “Scalia was ‘furious’ at Roberts vote on healthcare law, says Toobin book.”
The William & Mary Law School has a news release headlined “Law School celebrates contributions of Justice Scalia.”
And at The Huffington Post, law professor Eric Segall has an essay entitled “The Scalia-Posner War and Why it Matters.”
“David Souter Gets Rock Star Welcome, Offers Constitution Day Warning”: Margaret Warner has this blog post at PBS NewsHour.
“Wrangle over union law will keep courts busy”: Patrick Marley of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has a news update that begins, “Gov. Scott Walker’s curbs on collective bargaining were overturned even before they took effect last year, quickly reinstated by the state Supreme Court, scaled back in March by a federal judge and, on Friday, dealt a major blow by a Dane County judge. Expect nothing but more court decisions in the months ahead as appeals on those last two cases are heard and others are sorted out by the court system.”
“Mesa mulls its next move on Angel Tattoo; State high court orders case back to county level”: The Arizona Republic has this news update.
“Newsmaker: Reuters Editor-in-Chief, Stephen J. Adler moderates a conversation with Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and Professor Bryan A. Garner on their new book, ‘Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts.'” You can watch live, online now via YouTube by clicking here.
“U.S. Warns Ruling Impedes Its Detention Powers”: Charlie Savage of The New York Times has a news update that begins, “The Obama administration warned Monday that a judge’s ruling last week blocking a statute authorizing the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects has jeopardized its ability to continue detaining certain prisoners captured during the war in Afghanistan.”
“U.S. asks appeals court to freeze military detention ruling”: Reuters has this report.
“How Obama, Roberts Interpret Laws In ‘The Oath'”: This audio segment, featuring an interview with Jeffrey Toobin, appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Fresh Air from WHYY.”
“DOJ Asks Appeals Court to Uphold Dismissal of Hiring Practices Suit”: At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Mike Scarcella has a post that begins, “The U.S. Justice Department doesn’t dispute that significant misconduct marred the review of candidates for a coveted slot in the department’s Honors Program in 2006. Department lawyers, however, want a federal appeals court to uphold the dismissal of a lawsuit that alleges senior DOJ officials improperly used candidates’ political and ideological information as the basis of dismissal from the interview process.”
“From Justice Thomas, a Little Talk About Himself and the Court”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.
“First big victim of 2nd Circuit’s MBS standing opinion: JPMorgan.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report.
“Calif. DNA collection from arrestees challenged”: The Associated Press has this report.
And last month, The Recorder published an article headlined “9th Circuit’s Reconsideration of DNA Collection Program Won’t Be the Last Case in the Sequence.”
“High-Court Clerks Attract a Frenzy; Law Firms Offer Signing Bonuses That Exceed Justices’ Pay”: Brent Kendall has this article today in The Wall Street Journal.
You can freely access the text of the article via Google News.
“Voting Rights for Blacks in ’65 Face Court Challenge”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.
“Thomas concedes that ‘we the people’ didn’t include blacks”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post.
“Federal appeals court to hear challenge to California DNA collection law”: Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News has this update about a case scheduled to be reargued this Wednesday before an 11-judge en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit’s own description of the two cases scheduled for reargument en banc on Wednesday can be accessed on page two of this PDF document.
“Quick appeal expected in collective bargaining case”: Today’s edition of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel contains an article that begins, “A Dane County judge’s ruling striking down many limits on collective bargaining for public workers will likely be appealed quickly and could go straight to a showdown on a divided, but often conservative-leaning state Supreme Court.”
“Judge looks forward to challenge of high court”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “After 32 years in the criminal justice field, Laramie County District Judge Michael Davis is moving to the state’s highest court. He was appointed in August to serve as a Wyoming Supreme Court justice by Gov. Matt Mead.”
“Book review: The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court” by Jeffrey Toobin.” Law professor Jeffrey Rosen has this book review today in The Washington Post.
In The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Repps Hudson has a book review headlined “Review: Toobin’s ‘The Oath’ is Obama v. Roberts.”
In The Richmond Times-Dispatch, Jay Strafford has a review headlined “Nonfiction review: The Oath by Jeffrey Toobin.”
And today in The Minneapolis Star Tribune, Kristin Tillotson has an article headlined “Jeffrey Toobin: Drama in the court; In his second book about the inner workings of the Supreme Court, Jeffrey Toobin sheds light on high-stakes legal battles between the White House and Chief Justice John Roberts.”
“Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Peterson convicted by ‘voices from the grave.'” Michael Kirkland of UPI has this report.
“Former Solicitor General Ted Olson Plays Biden in Ryan Debate Prep; Olson represented George W. Bush in the 2000 recount and later joined with his opposing counsel to challenge California’s gay-marriage ban”: National Journal has this report.
“State Supreme Court To Consider If Death Penalty Repeal Should Affect Current Cases”: In today’s edition of The Hartford Courant, Alaine Griffin has an article that begins, “The state Supreme Court has agreed to take up the issue of whether the recent repeal of Connecticut’s death penalty can apply only to future crimes.”
“TOOBIN BOOK: Roberts switched!” At Politico.com, today’s installment of Mike Allen’s Playbook has this report.
“Court upholds cop killer’s death sentence”: Bill Rankin of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a news update that begins, “The federal appeals court has upheld a death sentence against man who killed a sheriff’s deputy, even though the condemned inmate’s lead lawyer drank a quart of vodka every day during trial.”
You can access yesterday’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — in which each of the three judges wrote separately — at this link.
Senior Circuit Judge J.L. Edmondson‘s opinion concurring in the judgment, which appears at page 105 of the document, is rather unusual. He writes:
In my experience, longish opinions always present a strong possibility of error lurking somewhere in the text. That the opinion writer is a skilled and careful judge does not eliminate the risk. Furthermore, no one wishes to join in an opinion that they do not understand fully. It is hard, time-consuming, painstaking work for the panel’s other judges to check long opinions, line by line, cited case by cited case. (Of course, always other cases are awaiting decision and also demand the judges’ time and attention.)
A footnote then goes on to observe:
It seems to me that the incidence of long opinions has been on the rise in the last decade or, at least, more are coming across my desk. I should say that I, broadly speaking, do not agree that the length of an opinion necessarily reflects the thought, labor, and care that has been invested by judges in their endeavor to decide the case correctly. The shorter opinions often reflect the greater study and thought leading up to the ultimate decision. Mark Twain touched on a related idea: “If you want me to give you a two-hour presentation, I am ready today. If you want only a five-minute speech, it will take me two weeks to prepare.”
Circuit Judge Ed Carnes wrote the 104-page lead opinion in the case.
“Federal appellate court backs how Kansas selects judges”: Today’s edition of The Kansas City Star contains an article that begins, “A divided U.S. Court of Appeals on Thursday rejected a challenge to the way Kansas selects its judges.”
And The Topeka Capital-Journal reports that “Appeals court backs lawyers in nominating process.”
You can access yesterday’s non-precedential ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit at this link. Each of the three judges on the panel issued a separate opinion.
“Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan coming to Univ. of Richmond”: The Associated Press has this report.
