“Supreme Court finds dilemma in spurned wife’s conviction”: Robert Barnes will have this article in Wednesday’s edition of The Washington Post. In addition, the newspaper has published an op-ed by U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) titled “The Supreme Court can use a soap-opera case to stop federal overreach.”
In Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin will have an article headlined “Supreme Court Doubts Treaty Is Relevant to Poisoning Case; Justices Skeptical That Chemical Weapons Convention Applies to Love-Triangle Rivals.”
On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Love Triangle Case Puts Chemical Weapons Treaty To The Test.”
This evening’s broadcast of The PBS NewsHour contained a segment titled “How a ruling on toxic revenge could change the way treaties are enforced” featuring Marcia Coyle.
At the ABC News blog “The Note,” Ariane de Vogue has a post titled “Justices Hear Love Triangle Meets States’ Rights Case.”
And at Forbes.com, Daniel Fisher has a post titled “SCOTUS Debate: Can A Jilted Wife Violate Chemical Weapons Treaty?”
“New York Town Divided as Prayer Case Heads to Supreme Court”: This article will appear in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.
“Will The Supreme Court Limit The Government’s Criminalization Of Truthful Scientific & Medical Speech?” John Osborn has this post at Forbes.com.
“Hicks challenges legality of US terror conviction”: The Age of Melbourne, Australia has this report.
“Richard Posner tackles complexity”: Robert Teitelman has this blog entry at The Huffington Post.
“Ecuador Judge Says $19 Billion Chevron Ruling Was His Own”: Bloomberg News has this report.
And Reuters reports that “Former Ecuadorean judge denies fraud, defends Chevron ruling.”
“The Constitutionality of Saying a Prayer at a City Council Meeting: May America Bless God?” The American Bar Association has posted online this case preview written by law professor Thomas E. Baker.
“In Viacom v. YouTube appeal, law profs duel over copyright cop duties”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report.
“Baby Veronica case: Adoptive parents seek more than $1 million in legal fees from biological father, Cherokees.” The Tulsa World has this news update.
“My Thoughts on Fernandez v. California“: At “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Orin Kerr has a post that begins, “On November 13th, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a Fourth Amendment case, Fernandez v. California, on the scope of the third-party consent doctrine.”
“Reid setting up votes on two more judicial nominees”: Ed O’Keefe has this entry this afternoon at the “Post Politics” blog of The Washington Post.
And Roll Call has a blog post titled “Reid to Set Up Next Moves in Latest ‘Nuclear Option’ Staredown.”
“Supreme Court appointments: Wrong person on the hot seat.” Online at The Toronto Globe and Mail, law professor Adam Dodek has an essay that begins, “Canada’s Supreme Court is in a jam. With the controversy swirling over the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon, the high court now finds itself down a judge and faced with the uncomfortable position of having to decide a reference about the legality of appointments to itself.”
“Supreme Court Hears Unlikely Test of Federal Power”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.
At the “School Law” blog of Education Week, Mark Walsh has a post titled “Unusual Supreme Court Mix: Chemical Weapons, Treaties, and Education.”
And online at The Atlantic, law professor Garrett Epps has an essay titled “What Begins as Domestic Farce May End in Foreign-Policy Tragedy; The case of United States v. Bond: Five Justices seem disposed to create a new rule that could hamstring foreign policy down the road.”
“State AGs in the Dock: Are state attorneys general about to be slapped down at the Supreme Court?” Avi Schick and Kiran Patel have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“The Supreme Court Doesn’t Necessarily Care If Your Lawyer Is Unethical: This morning, all nine justices revealed what they really think about the right to counsel.” Andrew Cohen has this essay online at The Atlantic.
“A Judge and More: The life of Karen Williams celebrated in Monday service,” This article appears today in The Times and Democrat of Orangeburg, South Carolina.
“Justices divided over ‘toxic love’ case involving states’ rights”: Bill Mears of CNN.com has this report.
And Josh Gerstein of Politico.com reports that “Supreme Court skeptical of government’s chemical weapons case.”
“Not ‘court-packing,’ GOP’s aim is ‘court-shrinking'”: Jeff Shesol has this essay online at Reuters.
“U.S. justices question woman’s chemical weapons conviction”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.
Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Court skeptical of anti-chemical weapons law use.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Justices Suggest They May Curb Congress’s Power in Poison Case.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Justices decry chemical weapons case against jilted wife; Federal government’s use of an international treaty to prosecute a Pennsylvania woman for attacking her husband’s lover may go too far, they say.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument recap: A tense hour at the Court.”
In earlier coverage, today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer contains an article headlined “Montco poisoning case goes back to Supreme Court.”
Update: You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Bond v. United States, No. 12-158.
Access online today’s opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in an argued case: Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Burt v. Titlow, No. 12-414. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. You can access the oral argument via this link.
Update: In news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “High court reinstates lengthy prison term in Mich.”
“Case mixing toxic love and states’ rights reaches high court”: Bill Mears of CNN.com has this report.
At the ABC News blog “The Note,” Ariane de Vogue has a post titled “Supreme Court Wades Into Bizarre Love Triangle Case.”
And on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “A Toxic Love Triangle Heads To The Supreme Court.”
“Facebook’s Settlement on ‘Beacon’ Service Survives Challenge; High Court Declines to Hear Appeal Related to Short-Lived Privacy Issue”: Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has this report.
And Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Facebook privacy deal OKd with justice’s warning.”
“Horse-Meat Plant Inspection Halted by U.S. Appeals Court”: Bloomberg News has this report.
“Court hears request to toss law against mailing nudity”: Today’s edition of The Athens (Ga.) Banner-Herald contains an article that begins, “A text message containing a photo of a man’s penis could prompt the Georgia Supreme Court to throw out a 43-year-old law that requires a warning on the outside of the envelope when sending depictions of nudity.”
“Patent Tug-of-War Prompts Congress to Catch Up to Courts”: Bloomberg News has this report.
“Issue of Prayer Returns to the Court”: Adam Liptak has this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in today’s edition of The New York Times.
And online at Slate, law professor Alan Brownstein and Lanae Erickson Hatalsky have a jurisprudence essay titled “Let Us Not Pray: Why the Supreme Court shouldn’t let town boards start meetings with prayer.”
“Court Fight”: In Saturday’s edition of The New York Times, columnist Charles M. Blow had an op-ed that begins, “One thing that often gets lost in the moment-to-moment measurements of a president’s efficacy and his legacy is one of the most enduring and resilient effects he can have on American life: court appointments.”
