How Appealing

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

“At Supreme Court, suspect’s silence speaks volumes; A Texas murder case hinged on one question that went unanswered; Now it could give new meaning to the Fifth Amendment’s right to remain silent”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument recap: Reading silence’s meaning.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Salinas v. Texas, No. 12-246.

Posted at 10:42 PM by Howard Bashman

“Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin reach deal on nominating federal judges”: Craig Gilbert has this post at the “All Politics Blog” of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Posted at 10:32 PM by Howard Bashman

“If (and when?) confirmed, will Judge William Pryor champion federalism concerns within the US Sentencing Commission?” Douglas A. Berman has this post today at his “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog.

Posted at 10:25 PM by Howard Bashman

“Supreme Court limits warrantless blood tests for drunken driving suspects”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this news update.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “High court wants warrants before testing drivers’ blood; But justices are willing to consider warrantless blood tests in some cases, citing drunken driving statistics and dissipation of blood-alcohol levels.”

And NPR’s Nina Totenberg has a blog post titled “Supreme Court Backs Warrants For Blood Tests In DUI Cases.”

Posted at 10:11 PM by Howard Bashman

“Court considers California ban on gay conversion therapy”: Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News has an update that begins, “A federal appeals court on Wednesday tussled with the legality of California’s unprecedented ban on gay conversion therapy for minors, suggesting it could be upheld despite reservations about the free speech rights of counselors who support the practice.”

Once the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit posts online the audio of today’s oral argument, I will link to it.

Posted at 4:00 PM by Howard Bashman

“Justices Bar U.S. Suit in Nigerian Human Rights Case”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Supreme Court limits civil lawsuits alleging atrocities committed abroad.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Supreme Court blocks overseas human rights cases from U.S. courts.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Justices close U.S. courts to foreign human rights cases; Justices’ unanimous ruling closes courthouse doors to most cases with no direct connection to the United States, despite protests from human rights groups.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Rights questions remain in top court ruling for Shell.”

Bill Mears of reports that “Justices back corporations in overseas abuses case.”

Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire reports that “Justices back Royal Dutch Shell in landmark human rights case.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion recap: Backing off of human rights cases.”

Posted at 3:30 PM by Howard Bashman

Access online today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued two decisions in argued cases.

1. Justice Sonia Sotomayor announced the judgment of the Court and delivered
the opinion of the Court in large measure in Missouri v. McNeely, No. 11-1425. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy issued an opinion concurring in part. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined. And Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. And Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Shell Co., No. 10-1491. Justice Kennedy issued a concurring opinion. Justice Alito issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. And Justice Breyer issued an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined. You can access the reargument of the case from earlier this Term via this link.

Update: In early news coverage, Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Companies Shielded as U.S. Court Cuts Human-Rights Suits” and “Forced Blood Tests Often Need Warrant, U.S. Court Says.”

The Associated Press reports that “High court limits suits over foreign abuses” and “Court rejects routine no-warrant DUI blood tests.”

Posted at 10:07 AM by Howard Bashman

“Expert Testimony Restored”: Inside Higher Ed has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court on Tuesday reinstated a former student’s negligence lawsuit against Carthage College, saying that a lower court had incorrectly deemed an expert witness’s testimony to be inadmissible.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link.

Posted at 8:46 AM by Howard Bashman

“Wal-Mart plaintiffs, in second try, hope to distinguish case”: Carlyn Kolker of Reuters has a report that begins, “The plaintiffs who filed the original class action discrimination case against Wal-Mart that led to a signature Supreme Court decision limiting large class actions are asking a judge to certify a different, smaller class of women in an attempt to distinguish the case from its predecessor.”

Posted at 8:22 AM by Howard Bashman