“Supreme Court to Tackle Voting-Rights Case”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.
Sahil Kapur of TPM DC reports that “Overturning The Voting Rights Act Would Be Seminal Moment For Conservative Legal Movement.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court to weigh ongoing validity of voting rights law.”
Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Voting Rights Act: Is major portion outdated? Supreme Court to hear arguments.”
The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court to take key voting rights case.”
The Austin American-Statesman reports that “Voting rights case has Texas implications.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today has an article headlined “For ’60s civil rights leader, the march isn’t over.”
Ariane De Vogue of ABC News reports that “Challenge to the Voting Rights Act Reaches Supreme Court.”
Ryan J. Reilly of The Huffington Post has an article headlined “Supreme Court Voting Rights Act Case: DOJ’s Tom Perez Calls Section 5 ‘Regrettably’ Necessary.”
And from National Public Radio, yesterday evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment titled “Alabama Divided As Court Prepares To Hear Voting Rights Challenge.” And yesterday’s broadcast of “Talk of the Nation” contained an audio segment titled “Is The Voting Rights Act Relevant In 2013?”
“Abortion rights: Why New York is swimming against the national tide; New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has come under fire for proposing a bill relaxing abortion controls even as many other states push restrictions; His office says the bill aims to strengthen Roe v. Wade.” The Christian Science Monitor has this report.
“Sen. Ted Cruz’s crusade draws praise from allies, scorn from critics”: This article appears today in The Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
“Justices Turn Back Challenge to Broader U.S. Eavesdropping”: Adam Liptak will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.
In Wednesday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Supreme Court dismisses challenge to surveillance law.”
In Wednesday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage will have an article headlined “Supreme Court rules out secret surveillance lawsuits; The ruling is the latest to shield the U.S. government’s anti-terrorism surveillance programs from court challenge; Critics see a setback for privacy rights.”
Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Surveillance law: US group can’t challenge it, Supreme Court rules; A 2008 surveillance law allows the US government to detect and track the messages of would-be foreign terrorists; Critics say it is overly broad, but on Tuesday the Supreme Court blocked a challenge to it.”
This evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Makes It Harder To Challenge Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act” featuring Nina Totenberg.
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Wiretapping-Law Challenges Barred by U.S. Supreme Court.”
At Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog, David Kravets has a post titled “Supreme Court Thwarts Challenge to Warrantless Surveillance.”
At Ars Technica. Joe Mullin reports that “Supreme Court kills activists’ challenge to FISA spying law; 5-4 decision holds groups can’t sue unless they can prove they were spied on.”
And Matt Sledge of The Huffington Post has an article headlined “Clapper v. Amnesty International, Warrantless Wiretapping Challenge, Struck Down By Supreme Court.”
“High court throws out $1B fraud verdict in Exxon leak case”: The Baltimore Sun has this news update.
And Jonathan Stempel and Anna Driver of Reuters report that “Court throws out much of $1.6 bln leak case vs Exxon.”
You can access today’s rulings of the Court of Appeals of Maryland — that state’s highest court — in these two cases here and here.
“Halligan Vote Could Rekindle Judges Fight”: Roll Call has a report that begins, “The battle over judicial nominations in the Senate could reignite as soon as next week as Democrats look to fill what they argue are pressing vacancies.”
“Gay Couples Face a Mixed Geography of Marriage”: This article will appear Wednesday in The New York Times.
“9th Circuit OKs Facebook settlement, despite judges’ grumbling”: Dan Levine of Reuters has this report on an order denying rehearing en banc, and dissent therefrom, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.
And at her “Trial Insider” blog, Pamela A. MacLean has a post titled “Facebook Privacy Settlement ‘Muddles’ Law.”
“Live robed girls on your home screen”: In today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle, columnist Jon Carroll has an op-ed that begins, “Justice Sonia Sotomayor has been pretty much everyplace recently; having a book to flog will do that to a person. Suddenly her opinions on a wide variety of issues are being parsed for their possible impact on her Supreme Court votes.”
“2nd Circuit upholds NYC ordinance on flavored tobacco”: Reuters has this report.
My earlier coverage of today’s Second Circuit ruling appears at this link.
“DOMA: Describing a life in the shadows.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
“Federal Judge Oberdorfer, Who Died at 94, ‘Tried to Do Justice Wherever Possible'”: Zoe Tillman and Tony Mauro have this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”
“Arkansas governor vetoes 20-week abortion bill”: The Associated Press has this report.
“9th Circuit judges split over anti-Bush protest”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this blog post reporting on an order denying rehearing en banc, and dissent therefrom, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.
“Police use of DNA samples at issue in Supreme Court case”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument recap: Does crime-solving trump privacy?”
“The Roberts Court vs. Voting Rights”: Law professor David Cole has this blog post online today at The New York Review of Books.
“Influential Republicans Champion Same Sex Marriage”: Sahil Kapur has this report at TPM DC.
Update: In other coverage, Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News has a report headlined “Proposition 8 case: Conservatives line up against gay marriage ban in U.S. Supreme Court.”
“Circuit Blocks Sea Shepherd Anti-Whaling Actions”: Pamela A. MacLean has this post at her “Trial Insider” blog reporting a decision, and a partial dissent from the decision, that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued late yesterday.
Update: In other coverage, The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: Anti-whaling protesters are ‘pirates.’”
“Circuit Reconsiders Muzzling Defense Closings”: Pamela A. MacLean has this post at her “Trial Insider” blog reporting on an order granting rehearing en banc that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.
“Racial Prejudice at Trial? Sorry, Can’t Help, Says Supreme Court; Justice Sotomayor blasts a federal prosecutor for racially charged comments during a trial; But for the one person most affected by his slurs — the defendant — there’s no relief in sight.” Andrew Cohen has this essay online at The Atlantic.
“Court takes up question of arrestee DNA sampling”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has this report.
Update: You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Maryland v. King, No. 12-207.
“DOMA plaintiff’s brief filed”: “SCOTUSblog” has this post. The brief itself can be accessed here.
“Federal court rejects Florida’s welfare drug-testing appeal”: The Miami Herald has this blog post.
And The Associated Press reports that “Temporary ban on Fla. welfare drug testing upheld.”
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit at this link.
In the March 2013 issue of ABA Journal magazine: Mark Walsh has articles headlined “Justices will probe Arizona’s voter registration law” and “Fifty years after Gideon, lawyers still struggle to provide counsel to the indigent.”
Terry Carter’s cover story is headlined “Meet the man who would save Guantanamo.”
Anna Stolley Persky has an article headlined “District attorneys are declining to defend controversial state and federal laws.”
And this month’s installment of Bryan A. Garner’s “On Words” column is headlined “Why lawyers can’t write.”
“Judge lifts order sealing Tucson shooting records”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A judge has lifted his order that prevented the release of investigation records in the Tucson shooting rampage that killed six people and wounded former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords two years ago.”
“Supreme Court blocks challenge to anti-terrorism law”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this news update.
Adam Liptak of The New York Times has a news update headlined “Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Surveillance Law.”
And Politico.com reports that “Supreme Court dismisses surveillance case.”
“Obama May Bolster Gay-Marriage Bid in California Case”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.
Second Circuit holds that federal law does not preempt a New York City ordinance governing the sale of flavored smokeless tobacco products: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.
“Ted Cruz Doubles Down On Idiotic, Incorrect Statement About Harvard Law School”: Elie Mystal has this post at “Above the Law.”
“Enraged by abusive lawsuits, anonymous troll slayers fight back; Growing community of online activists is making life difficult for porn trolls”: Timothy B. Lee has this article online today at Ars Technica.
“EU judges to hear arguments in Google test privacy case”: Reuters has a report that begins, “Google will do battle with Spain’s data protection authority in Europe’s highest court on Tuesday in a landmark case with global implications which poses one of the thorniest questions of the Internet age: When is information really private?”
“Appointment of The Right Honourable Lord Justice Toulson, The Right Honourable Lord Justice Hughes and Lord Hodge as Justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom”: The British Prime Minister’s Office issued this news release today.
Thereafter, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom issued a news release titled “Trio of judicial appointments to the Supreme Court.”
“Constitution Check: Would a ‘drone court’ be unconstitutional?” Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.
Access online today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued two rulings in argued cases.
1. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, No. 11-1025. Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
2. And Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court in Marx v. General Revenue Corp., No. 11-1175. Justice Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court won’t allow challenge to surveillance law.”
And Lawrence Hurley and Jonathan Stempel of Reuters report that “Supreme Court throws out challenge to surveillance law.”
“Wisconsin is next Wal-Mart battleground”: Carlyn Kolker of Reuters has this report.
