“Public school can’t require students to display a motto on their uniforms”: At “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has this post about a case that Eugene briefed, argued, and won today on behalf of his clients in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Update: In other coverage, Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Court says public school uniform may violate free-speech rights.”
And at her “Trial Insider” blog, Pamela A. MacLean has a post titled “School Uniform Logo Flunks First Amendment.”
“Thoughts on oral argument in Notre Dame v. Sebelius”: Will Baude has this post today at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
Update: An interesting discussion of the oral argument is underway at the “Conlawprof” list, and two comments that I found particularly worth noting came from Kurt Lash and Marty Lederman.
“Federal Judge Overturns Virginia’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban”: Erik Eckholm of The New York Times has this report.
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Virginia judge strikes down gay marriage ban; Ruling by U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen sets the stage for a possible Supreme Court showdown, though cases from Utah and Oklahoma also are headed that way.”
The Daily Press of Newport News, Virginia reports that “Virginia federal judge strikes down state’s same-sex marriage ban.”
The Los Angeles Times reports that “Virginia’s gay marriage ban struck down by federal judge.”
Bloomberg News reports that “Virginia’s Gay-Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional.”
Reuters reports that “Federal judge strikes down Virginia’s ban on gay marriage.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban falls.”
My earlier coverage of last night’s ruling appears in the post immediately below.
“The Court ENJOINS the Commonwealth from enforcing Sections 20-45.2 and 20-45.3 of the Virginia Code and Article I, Sec. 15-A of the Virginia Constitution to the extent these laws prohibit a person from marrying another person of the same gender.” The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued this ruling tonight.
In early news coverage, The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that “Federal judge strikes down Virginia’s gay marriage ban.”
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Federal judge strikes down Va. ban on gay marriage.”
The Virginian-Pilot has a report headlined “U.S. judge: Va. same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.”
The Associated Press has a report headlined “Judge: Va. same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.”
And Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has a blog post titled “Federal judge strikes down Virginia same-sex marriage ban.”
“Sweeping ruling on guns in public”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
At her “Trial Insider” blog, Pamela A. MacLean has a post titled “California Concealed Weapons Law Gutted.”
And online at The Los Angeles Times, Michael McGough has an essay titled “Did the 9th Circuit Court just kill gun control?”
My earlier coverage of today’s Ninth Circuit ruling appears here and here.
“Court overturns county gun permit rules; Appeals court ruled self-defense is a good enough reason to carry a concealed gun”: The San Diego Union-Tribune has this news update.
Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update headlined “Court strikes California law restricting concealed weapons.”
Josh Richman of The Oakland Tribune has a news update headlined “Gun control: Federal court guts California’s concealed-carry rules.”
The Washington Times has a news update headlined “Federal court deals gun-grabbers a blow in San Diego concealed carry ruling.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Court tosses California’s concealed weapons rules.”
My earlier coverage of today’s Ninth Circuit ruling appears at this link.
Update: At “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has a post titled “What next for the Second Amendment and the right to carry guns?”
Judge Posner asserts it’s time to consider eliminating the “present sense impression” and “excited utterance” exceptions to the hearsay rule: Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner issued an interesting concurring opinion today.
“How The Supreme Court Pushed Judges To Strike Down Gay Marriage Bans”: Sahil Kapur of TPM DC has this report today.
“We are called upon to decide whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.” So begins the majority opinion that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.
Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain‘s majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Consuelo M. Callahan joined, concludes:
The district court erred in denying the applicant’s motion for summary judgment on the Second Amendment claim because San Diego County’s “good cause” permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.
Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas issued a dissenting opinion that concludes:
In dealing a needless, sweeping judicial blow to the public
safety discretion invested in local law enforcement officers and to California’s carefully constructed firearm regulatory scheme, the majority opinion conflicts with Supreme Court authority, the decisions of our sister circuits, and our own circuit precedent.
Paul D. Clement argued the case for the appellants. The case was argued back in December 2012, and you can access the oral argument audio via this link.
“NY court upholds conviction for video of neighbor”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “New York’s highest court is upholding the conviction of a suburban Rochester man for videotaping his neighbor after a shower through an exterior window.”
You can access today’s unanimous ruling of the Court of Appeals of New York — that state’s highest court — at this link.
“Former justice: Gag order only applies to parties in pension lawsuit.” Tom Mooney has this front page article today in The Providence (R.I.) Journal.
“Why The Senate STILL Isn’t Able To Get Anything Done Even After The ‘Nuclear Option'”: Ian Millhiser has this post today at “ThinkProgress.”
On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition“: Carrie Johnson had an audio segment titled “In Security Cases, Feds No Longer Get Benefit Of The Doubt.”
And Peter Overby had an audio segment titled “‘Citizens United’ Critics Fight Money With Money.”
So you thought your appellate oral argument was contentious? Yesterday, attorney Matthew A. Kairis — head of the litigation section at the Columbus, Ohio office of Jones Day — had the “pleasure” of arguing Univ. of Notre Dame v. Kathleen Sebelius before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit consisting of Circuit Judges Richard A. Posner, Joel M. Flaum, and David F. Hamilton.
You can listen to the audio of the oral argument via this link.
Putting it mildly, Judge Posner was at his cantankerous best during the oral argument, at one point yelling at Kairis “You answer my question!” Judge Posner also told Notre Dame’s lawyer several times “Don’t fence with me” when Judge Posner thought that Kairis was not answering a question directly enough. And at one point, Judge Posner told Kairis “If you don’t cooperate with me, I’m not going to let you continue your argument.”
Judge Posner never did carry through with his threat to shut down Kairis’s argument, so it’s not clear whether that would have required the concurrence of another panel member. In Judge Posner’s defense, at one point even Judge Hamilton seemed a little exasperated with Kairis’s failure to directly respond to a question, reminding the advocate that the lawyers had already inflicted a great deal of reading material on the judges communicating whatever the lawyers wanted to say, and now it was the judges’ opportunity to have the lawyers address the judges’ many questions and concerns.
Several times during the oral argument, Judge Posner told Kairis “Please don’t interrupt me.” Some of those times, however, it was Judge Posner who was interrupting Kairis, who then failed to stop talking. Instead of trying to prove the point “You don’t interrupt me; rather, I interrupt you,” maybe Judge Posner could have better communicated his message by telling the advocate, “When I start talking, you must stop talking.”
Yesterday, I had this post collecting news coverage of the oral argument.
“Ending ”Gay Conversion’ for Good”: Jacob M. Victor has this op-ed today in The New York Times.
“Kagan: ‘Too Soon’ for a Bobblehead.” Michelle Olsen has this post today at her “Appellate Daily” blog.
“Supreme Court Weighs ‘Qualified Immunity’ for Cops Who Use Deadly Force to End Car Chases; Aggressive police tactics go on trial at the high court”: Damon Root has this essay online at Reason.
“Ky. gay marriage ruling looks to precedents”: Brett Barrouquere of The Associated Press has this report.
“How the Case of an Amish Farmer Could Doom Hobby Lobby in Court: It doesn’t matter whether an employer is secular or religious, non-profit or for-profit; The Supreme Court’s precedents show that the government’s interest in nationwide programs trumps all.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online today at The Atlantic.
“Obama Surveillance Suit by Rand Paul Spurs Lawyer Fight”: Andrew Zajac and Phil Milford of Bloomberg News have this report.
“Interest Groups Gear Up For Next Supreme Court Vacancy”: NPR has this report.
“NRA gets behind NJ man’s lawsuit challenging state’s gun carry restrictions, group says”: The Newark Star-Ledger has this article.
And The Associated Press reports that “19 states to help challenge New Jersey gun law.”
“Justice Thomas comments spark fresh debate on race”: Bill Mears of CNN.com has this news analysis.
The Washington Times has an article headlined “Black Dem on Clarence Thomas: White wife OK, but justice is ‘Uncle Tom.’”
And online at The New York Times, columnist Charles M. Blow has an essay titled “Thomas Speaks … Blindly About Race.”
“Teen’s Sentence Won’t Go Before En Banc Circuit”: Courthouse News Service has a report that begins, “With seven judges complaining about the creation of a circuit split, the 9th Circuit refused Wednesday to disturb the reversal of a teenager’s 254-year prison sentence.”
You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denying rehearing en banc, and the dissent therefrom, at this link. A total of seven judges joined in the dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc.
The original three-judge panel’s unanimous ruling can be accessed here.
“Contraception mandate burdens religious exercise, Hobby Lobby argues; With U.S. Supreme Court arguments looming, the Oklahoma City-based chain says law protects corporations as well as individuals”: Chris Casteel of The Oklahoman has this report.
“Judge issues temporary restraining order prohibiting Tulsa pharmacy from delivering execution drug”: The Tulsa World has this news update.
And The Associated Press reports that “Company blocked from selling execution drug to Mo.”
Update: You can view the temporary restraining order at this link.
“Resentencing delayed for convicted terrorism plotter with Broward ties; Trained al-Qaida fighter Jose Padilla could face harsher penalty after appeals court says judge erred in giving him 17 years”: The South Florida Sun Sentinel has this news update.
“Ruling on birth control mandate appealed; Federal attorneys ask for review”: Rich Lord has this article today in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Today’s edition of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review contains an article headlined “Government appeals rulings in local health care mandate cases.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Pa. health care law contraceptive rulings appealed.”
“Judge issues no decision in Texas’ same-sex marriage ban”: The San Antonio Express-News has this update.
And Reuters reports that “U.S. court hears suit to overturn same-sex marriage ban in Texas.”
“Looking vs. Touching: Is possession of child pornography a crime worthy of years in prison?” Jacob Sullum has this essay online today at Reason.
“How Much Money Is Hobby Lobby’s Morality Worth? In March, the company will make arguments before the Supreme Court, defending the right not to provide contraceptive coverage to employees. But what happens if it loses?” Emma Green has this essay online at The Atlantic.
And at the “Mirror of Justice” blog, Kevin C. Walsh has a post titled “A couple of observations about the government’s Questions Presented in Conestoga Wood.”
“ND case hearing turns contentious”: The South Bend Tribune has this news update.
In Thursday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Ben Kesling and Louise Radnofsky will have an article headlined “Judges Push Back on Notre Dame Challenge; School’s Bid to Be Exempt From Any Involvement in Contraception Coverage Draws Skeptical Responses From the Bench.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.
And Thursday’s edition of The Chicago Tribune will contain an article headlined “Judge, Notre Dame attorneys spar in school’s health care law appeal.”
You can access the oral argument of today’s oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Univ. of Notre Dame v. Sebelius, No. 13-3853, at this link.
“Kentucky ban on gay marriages from other states struck down by federal judge”: The Courier-Journal of Louisville has this news update.
The Lexington Herald-Leader has a news update headlined “Federal judge: Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages from other states.”
The Associated Press has a report headlined “Judge: Ky. must recognize same-sex marriages.”
Bloomberg News reports that “Kentucky Told to Recognize Out-of-State Same-Sex Marriage.”
Reuters has a report headlined “Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages from other states: judge.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” which provides this link to the ruling, Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Kentucky ruling on same-sex marriages.”
U.S. Supreme Court asked to resolve circuit split that has arisen over the substance of that Court’s holding in Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co. (1968): You can access the petition for writ of certiorari filed yesterday in the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.
As alluded to in this earlier post, I served as appellate counsel for the petitioner in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
“Oklahoma pharmacy sued over lethal injection drug”: The Associated Press has this report.
