“The lawyer who challenged the Harper government and won”: Sean Fine had this article in Saturday’s edition of The Toronto Globe and Mail.

“Health-care fears loom large in gay marriage cases”: The Associated Press has this report.

Programming note: New posts will appear here either on Monday night or Tuesday morning. In the interim, appellate-related retweets may appear at the “How Appealing” Twitter feed.

“Administration Proposes New Health Rules Addressing Religious Objections”: In Saturday’s edition of The New York Times, Michael D. Shear will have an article that begins, “The Obama administration on Friday proposed new regulations intended to address the religious objections that some nonprofit organizations and private companies have to providing contraceptive coverage for their employees.”

And The Los Angeles Times reports that “White House revises birth control rule to accommodate religious groups.”

How to comment on the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure: If you wish to offer an on-the-record comment in response to the pending proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure — which include a proposal to reduce the maximum word count of a principal appellate brief from 14,000 words to 12,500 words — you can submit your comment to the advisory committee via this link.

As of this moment, the only comment received appears to be from Senior Second Circuit Judge Jon O. Newman.

Thus far, in response to my original post on this subject, I have received only off-the record responses. Those responses can be summarized as follows: (1) this change should be welcomed by the most experienced and talented appellate practitioners, because a shorter maximum word count will benefit them the most; and (2) judges are of the view that in far too many cases the appellate briefs being submitted are far too long, and this rule is meant to remedy that problem somewhat.

“BlackBerry Ltd did not infringe on Mformation Technologies patents, appeals court rules”: Financial Post has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued today.

“U.S. court revives suit over Sturm coffee pod ‘knockoffs'”: Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued today.

“As semester begins, Markel’s colleagues seek closure”: Doug Blackburn has this article today in The Tallahassee Democrat.

“Reading the Court’s signals on same-sex marriage”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Justice Ginsburg Laments ‘Real Racial Problem’ in U.S.; Discusses major rulings, law schools in sweeping Q&A”: Marcia Coyle has this article online today at The National Law Journal.

“Lessons from Tennessee Supreme Court retention election”: Law professor Brian T. Fitzpatrick has this op-ed today in The Tennessean.

“GOP’s Supreme Court candidate defies ban on campaigning at State Fair booth”: The Associated Press has this report from Minnesota.

“Obamacare challengers to D.C. Circuit: Let Supreme Court decide where subsidies should flow.” Tom Howell Jr. of The Washington Times has this report.

“Bashman Post on Word Limit Reduction Proposal”: David R. Cleveland has this post today at the “Appellate Advocacy Blog.”

My post from last night on the new proposed amendment to reduce the maximum word count for federal appellate briefs by more than 10 percent can be accessed here.

“As Gensler sees it, the auteur approach to filmmaking is legally impermissible in the architectural business.” Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook issued this very interested opinion today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

“The Twilight of Antonin Scalia: The conservative hero’s fiery 2012 dissent on same-sex marriage could be his most influential opinion — but not in the way he intended.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Court unsealing 2 dozen documents in Doe probe of campaign”:
Patrick Marley and Dana Ferguson of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel have this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Court to unseal some files in probe of Gov. Walker.”

“California AG Kamala Harris to appeal ruling against death penalty”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

The Sacramento Bee has a news update headlined “Kamala Harris will appeal death penalty ruling.”

And The Associated Press reports that “California to appeal ruling tossing death penalty.”

“Superior Court upholds Joan Orie Melvin conviction”: Paula Reed Ward of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has this news update.

Adam Brandolph of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has a news update headlined “State Superior Court upholds conviction, sentence of former Justice Melvin.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Ex-judge must say she’s sorry, just not in cuffs.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania at this link.

“Supreme Court case to shape Ferguson investigation”: The Associated Press has this report.

Not ‘it’: Ninth Circuit holds that ‘tag’ jurisdiction doesn’t apply to a corporate defendant. Fans of civil procedure and personal jurisdiction issues are likely to enjoy reading a decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

“Chief Judge Kozinski’s ‘Serious Doubts’ About Judge Bates’s FISA Reform Letters”: Steve Vladeck has this post today at the “Just Security” blog. You can view the letter from the Ninth Circuit‘s chief judge at this link.

“U.S. effort to protect bald eagle suffers legal setback”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued today.

Microsoft Word doesn’t like “caselaw,” but Bryan Garner does: Spell-check can be a wonderful thing, but should attorneys give-in to that program’s belief that “caselaw” isn’t a word? In some recent appellate briefs, I have been using the two-word version to avoid the red underlining that Microsoft Word confers on my preferred single-word approach.

Tonight I decided to consult the views of legal writing guru Bryan A. Garner on this question via Google search. The answer from Garner seems to be that “caselaw” is just fine.

Proposal to shorten the maximum length of principal briefs filed in the U.S. Courts of Appeals from 14,000 words to 12,500 words: You can read the proposed amendment and accompanying commentary at this link. Apparently the current 14,000-word limit was based on a mistake concerning how many words fit onto a page. This proposed amendment likely will provoke an outcry from those who believe the current 14,000-word limit is too small — which undoubtedly it is in some cases.

The notice soliciting comments states that “All Written Comments are Due by February 17, 2015.” (Via “BeSpacific.”)

Readers who favor or disfavor this amendment are invited to send comments for publication here at “How Appealing.” Please identify whether I may publish your name with your comment. I am in the process of formulating my views on the matter.

Update: Mathematically, the proposed new 12,500-word limit on principal briefs represents 89.3 percent of the current 14,000-word limit. Thus, if you currently reach the word count maximum at around 66 pages (which I typically do when using either 14-point Century Schoolbook or Book Antiqua font), then under the new rule you would reach the maximum word count at around 60 pages. That could be the difference between being able to include an additional argument or being able to adequately develop all existing arguments in a brief consisting of more than just a few arguments.

On the other hand, there certainly are those lawyers, and even some law firms, who can’t stop writing until the word count is reached, whether or not the case justifies such extended treatment. In at least those instances, the new word count will certainly be appreciated by those of us on the other side of the case.

It would be interesting to hear from appellate judges whether the current word count is too long and whether shortening the word count by approximately 11 percent would make an appreciable difference to their workloads and ability to give important cases the attention they deserve. My guess is that judges have their own mechanism for coping with verbose briefs that typically consists of paying less attention and that this small reduction in maximum brief size won’t make any difference in that regard.

“When Do Doctors Have the Right to Speak?” The New York Times today has posted online these Room for Debate essays.

“SeaWorld drops appeal in safety ruling over dead orca trainer”: Reuters has this report.

“By Any Means Necessary”: Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

Pa. Supreme Court grants review to decide two important but unresolved questions pertaining to medical malpractice litigation: Question one involves the scope of a hospital’s liability under the ostensible agency doctrine, while question two involves whether a nurse may deliver expert testimony on behalf of the plaintiff against a defendant nurse in a case in which physicians remain as co-defendants.

You can access at this link the Petition for Allowance of Appeal that I filed in early March 2014 on behalf of the plaintiff in this case requesting Pa. Supreme Court review. And today’s order of Pennsylvania’s highest court granting review on both questions presented can be accessed here.

“Supreme Court puts hold on same-sex marriages in Virginia”: The Richmond Times-Dispatch has this news update.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Virginia same-sex marriage ruling is placed on hold.”

And Timothy M. Phelps of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Supreme Court blocks gay marriages from starting in Virginia.”

You can access today’s order of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

“A New Type of Amicus Brief: No Clients, No Side Taken”: Tom Goldstein is the focus of Tony Mauro’s new Supreme Court Brief. You can freely access the full text of the article via Google News.

Update: The amicus brief is available online at this link.

“Arrested US judge embarrassed, entering treatment”: The Associated Press has this report.

After nearly 20 years of litigation, Ninth Circuit rejects Hare Krishna’s First Amendment challenge to the Los Angeles International Airport’s regulation banning the continuous or repetitive solicitation of funds: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“The Crooked and the Dead: Does the Constitution protect corruption?” Jill Lepore has this article in the August 25, 2014 issue of The New Yorker.

“Ginsburg and Alito to Speak at New-York Historical Society”: This post appeared yesterday at the “ArtsBeat” blog of The New York Times.