“Ruling against Texas’ gay marriage ban may set up Supreme Court fight; A federal judge rejects Texas’ ban on gay marriage; The latest ruling in a conservative state may move the issue closer to the Supreme Court”: Molly Hennessy-Fiske of The Los Angeles Times has this report.
And Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “US judge strikes down Texas gay marriage ban as ‘state-imposed inequality’; Texas is the fourth conservative state since December to have a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage struck down by a federal judge, joining Utah, Oklahoma, and Virginia.”
“Justices Rule Against Man Over a Zone for Protests”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.
Robert Barnes and William Branigin of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court rules against antiwar protester.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court sides with military in Vandenberg protest case.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court says Pentagon can bar protesters; Federal law permits the military to expel previously banned protesters, regardless of their First Amendment rights.”
The Associated Press reports that “Court rules against protester at military base.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court rules against protester at air force base.”
Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Protester loses appeal in military protest case.”
At “The Note” blog of ABC News, Ariane de Vogue has a post titled “Anti-War Protester Suffers A Supreme Court Loss.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion analysis: Setting military boundaries.”
You can access the U.S. Supreme Court‘s ruling today in United States v. Apel, No. 12-1038, at this link.
“Supreme Court Permits Investor Lawsuits in Stanford Fraud”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Ponzi scheme investors can sue in state courts; Because what they bought were not ‘covered securities,’ investors’ claims are not blocked by federal jurisdiction over securities fraud class actions.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices say Allen Stanford victims can sue lawyers, brokers.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Stanford Fraud Suits by Investors Allowed by High Court.”
The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court allows Stanford Ponzi scheme suits.”
Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court OKs investor lawsuits in Ponzi scheme case.”
And Nina Totenberg of NPR has a report headlined “Supreme Court Allows Stanford Ponzi Scheme Suits To Go Forward.”
You can access the U.S. Supreme Court‘s ruling today in Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, No. 12-79, at this link.
“‘Ground zero’ for the death penalty”: Tal Kopan of Politico.com has this report today.
“Supreme Court spectator interrupts justices”: Bill Mears of CNN.com has this report.
“Apple urges U.S. appeals court to void ‘radical’ e-books ruling”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report.
Bloomberg News reports that “Apple Argues Ignorance in E-Books Antitrust Ruling Appeal.”
The Associated Press reports that “Apple files appeal in e-book antitrust case.”
Jon Brodkin of Ars Technica has a report headlined “Apple e-book appeal: Higher new release prices boosted competition; Antitrust laws aren’t supposed to ‘keep prices down at any cost,’ Apple says.”
At WSJ.com’s “Law Blog,” Christopher M. Matthews has a post titled “Apple Asks Appeals Court to Toss Antitrust Ruling.”
The Hill has a blog post titled “Apple files appeal of ‘radical’ antitrust ruling.”
You can access the opening brief for appellant that Apple Inc. filed today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.
“Baseball Umpires Show Bias and Mercy”: Online at Bloomberg View, law professor Cass R. Sunstein today has an essay that begins, “In his Senate confirmation hearing in 2005, the aspiring chief justice, John Roberts, offered a memorable analogy: ‘Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules.'”
“The Big, Bad Freeze: The Supreme Court just made it easier for the government to take your assets before you even go to trial.” Chanakya Sethi has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Federal judge voids Texas’ gay marriage ban, though he delays order from taking effect immediately”: The Dallas Morning News has this update.
The Houston Chronicle has a news update headlined “Texas’ ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional.”
The Texas Tribune reports that “Judge Rules Texas’ Gay Marriage Ban is Unconstitutional.”
The New York Times has a news update headlined “Federal Judge Strikes Down Texas’ Ban on Same-Sex Marriage.”
The Associated Press reports that “Texas gay marriage ban latest to be struck down.”
Bloomberg News reports that “Texas Gay-Marriage Ban Held Illegal as Judge Delays Order.”
Reuters reports that “Judge rules Texas same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Texas ban on same-sex marriage nullified.”
“Argentina Takes Its Debt Case to the U.S. Supreme Court”: Law professor Steven M. Davidoff has this post at the “Dealbook” blog of The New York Times.
“Fight Over Who Will Take Marriage Equality To The Supreme Court Breaks Out Into The Open; Legal advocacy groups and big-name lawyers all want to be the ones who bring their case to the Supreme Court in order to argue for nationwide marriage equality”: Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed has this report.
“Minority Aspirants To Federal Bench Are Hindered By Underrating”: This audio segment appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”
And at msnbc, Adam Serwer has a report headlined “GOP court blockage ‘unprecedented.’”
“Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes Senate Bill 1062”: The Arizona Republic has a news update that begins, “Facing intense pressure from political and business interests and a growing public outcry, Gov. Jan Brewer announced Wednesday that she had vetoed Senate Bill 1062, the divisive right to refuse service legislation.”
Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star has a news update headlined “Brewer vetoes SB 1062, Arizona’s contentious religious rights bill.”
The New York Times has a news update headlined “Arizona Governor Vetoes Bill on Refusal of Service to Gays.”
The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes so-called anti-gay bill.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Arizona governor vetoes religious freedom bill.”
“Texas’ ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional”: The San Antonio Express-News has this report on a ruling that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued today.
“The attorney enviros hate to see at the Supreme Court”: Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire has this report today about Timothy S. Bishop of Mayer Brown LLP.
Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit extends the duration of Judge Jury’s appellate career: Here at “How Appealing,” I try to avoid trite idioms such as “Judge, Jury, and Executioner” to describe judicial rulings, although I do confess to having watched that episode of The Walking Dead.
Yet his blog understandably has a special fondness for Judge Jury of the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. A little over two years ago, when that jurist first came to my attention, I had a post titled “To complicate matters further, Judge Jury now serves in an appellate capacity.”
Today, the Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit delivered some happy news regarding Judge Jury and her ongoing tenure as an appellate jurist in a news release titled “Judge Meredith A. Jury Reappointed to Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.” Should she continue to successfully evade the executioner, Judge Jury is going to serve in her current appellate capacity through July 31, 2017.
“Same-sex couples tell court ban has ‘cemented’ discrimination; Attorneys for three couples ask court to uphold Utah judge’s ruling”: Brooke Adams of The Salt Lake Tribune has this report.
And Dennis Romboy of The Deseret News reports that “Court filing claims Utah treats same-sex couples as ‘legal strangers.'” The newspaper has posted the brief for appellees filed yesterday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit at this link.
“Tenth Circuit Same-Sex Marriage Arguments: Letter Requesting Online Audio.” Michelle Olsen has this post today at her “Appellate Daily” blog.
