“Issue on appeal: Did health-care reform rules hurt senator?” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Lawyers for U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson sought on Wednesday to revive the Wisconsin Republican’s challenge to the federal health care overhaul, arguing before an appellate panel that he was indeed harmed by executive rules associated with the legislation.”
And Courthouse News Service reports that “Senator’s Obamacare Case Goes Before the 7th.”
Earlier, The Washington Times previewed today’s oral argument in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in an article headlined “Ron Johnson hopes for a better outcome in round two of Obamacare lawsuit.”
The Seventh Circuit panel that heard today’s oral argument consisted of Circuit Judges Joel M. Flaum and Ann Claire Williams and Senior Circuit Judge William J. Bauer.
For whatever reason, the audio of today’s oral argument in this case is the only oral argument that occurred at the Seventh Circuit today that is not currently available online. Arguing for Senator Johnson was Paul D. Clement. Arguing for the federal government was Mark B. Stern.
“One by One, Protesters Interrupt Supreme Court”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Citizens United protesters disrupt Supreme Court session.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Protest on campaign spending disrupts Supreme Court.”
Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Activist Group Protests During Supreme Court Session for Second Time; 99Rise Protested the High Court’s 2010 Citizens United Campaign Finance Ruling.”
Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Demonstrators disrupt Supreme Court session.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Activists disrupt U.S. top court, denounce campaign spending ruling.”
David McLaughlin and Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News report that “Protesters Disrupt Supreme Court as Obama Criticizes Ruling.”
The Associated Press reports that “Protests over campaign finance during high court session.”
Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Protests break out in Supreme Court.”
Nina Totenberg of NPR has a report headlined “Shouts Of Protest At Supreme Court On ‘Citizens United’ Anniversary.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Mark Walsh has a post titled “View from the Courtroom: Disruption from the gallery on fifth anniversary of Citizens United.”
“The ‘Citizens United’ anniversary is a regrettable date for state courts”: Wallace Jefferson and Barbara Pariente have this op-ed in today’s edition of The Dallas Morning News.
“Judicial Indignity: The Supreme Court ponders judges’ freedom to panhandle.” Mark Joseph Stern has this Supreme Court dispatch online today at Slate.
“At UF, Stevens still sharp in criticism of Citizens United decision”: This front page article appears in today’s edition of The Gainesville Sun.
Programming note: At noon today, I will be at the National Constitution Center to attend a presentation by Second Circuit Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann on interpreting the law of Congress. After his talk, Chief Judge Katzmann will be signing copies of his new book — “Judging Statutes” — which will be available for purchase.
Additional posts will appear here later today.
Update: Via YouTube, you can view the video of today’s National Constitution Center event at this link. The second audience question was from yours truly. It was great to visit both with the speaker and with NCC President and Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Rosen following the event.
Access online today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued three rulings in argued cases.
1. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, No. 13-1211.
2. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp., No. 13-1174.
3. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean, No. 13-894. Justice Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joined.
“Supreme Court Sides With Teva in Patent Case; High Court Reverses Ruling That Invalidated Patent on Multiple-Sclerosis Drug”: Brent Kendall and Ashby Jones have this article in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal. You can access the full text of the article via Google. And at WSJ.com’s “Pharmalot” blog, Ed Silverman has a post titled “A Court Ruling Gives Teva how Much Time to Avoid Generic Copaxone?”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court rules for Teva over MS drug patent.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Teva Wins U.S. High Court Ruling to Delay Copaxone Rivals.”
Sam Hananel of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court sides with Teva in drug dispute.”
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that “Mylan loses Supreme Court fight over multiple sclerosis drug.”
The “PhillyPharma” blog of The Philadelphia Inquirer, David Sell has a post titled “With local impact on both sides, Supreme Court sides with Teva in drug dispute.”
The Hill reports that “Supreme Court sides with name brand drug company.”
Jeff John Roberts of Gigaom reports that “Supreme Court strips more power from controversial patent court.”
And at his “Patently-O” blog, Dennis Crouch has posts titled “Teva v. Sandoz: Partial Deference in Claim Construction” and “Giving Deference to the Supreme Court in Teva v. Sandoz.”
“Supreme Court may weaken housing bias cases”: Sam Hananel of The Associated Press has this report.
“Court Soundly Rejects Watchmaker’s Attempt To Abuse Copyright Law To Stop Sale Of Its Watches At Costco”: At Techdirt, Mike Masnick has this post about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.
“A Judicial Fund-Raising Case Causes Justices to Reflect on Their Own Jobs”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.
In Wednesday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Supreme Court considers whether judges can directly ask for campaign donations.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court asked to free judges to personally seek campaign money.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court is divided over judges’ fundraising.”
In Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin will have an article headlined “Supreme Court Divided Over Judicial Candidate Campaign Donations; Conservative Justices Challenge Effectiveness of Florida Rule Banning Candidates from Personally Soliciting Donations.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.
Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Supreme Court likely to be divided by issue of judges seeking campaign money.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Judicial Campaign Request Ban Questioned by Top U.S. Court.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court divided over Florida judicial election law.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices debate judicial candidates’ campaign appeals.”
On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Examines Gray Area In Judicial Campaigning.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument analysis: Running for a court seat, tin cup in hand?”
You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, No. 13-1499.
“Wisconsin Senate approves Supreme Court chief justice amendment”: The Capital Times of Madison, Wisconsin has an article that begins, “A Republican-backed constitutional amendment to change the way Wisconsin’s Supreme Court chief justice is selected passed the state Senate on a party-line vote Tuesday.”
“A 6-3 Supreme Court majority attends the State of the Union”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com has this report.
“Argument preview: That housing bias issue is back.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
And Michael A. Lindenberger of The Dallas Morning News has an article headlined “Supreme Court to hear Dallas housing discrimination case.”
Programming note: At 1:30 p.m. today, I will be arguing a criminal appeal before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. I recently linked to my client’s appellate briefs in a post you can access here.
New posts will appear here later today.
Update: The audio of my Third Circuit oral argument this afternoon can be accessed via this link (22.4 MB mp3 audio file).
“Access denied: The fight for SCOTUSblog.” Lydia Wheeler of The Hill today has a report that begins, “The idea, he said, was a random brain fart. If they blogged about U.S. Supreme Court cases, they’d be seen as experts and gain new clients for their firm, Tom Goldstein and wife Amy Howe thought when starting SCOTUSblog in 2002, at the onset of blogging.”
“Housing-Bias Claims at Risk as High Court Weighs Curbing Suits”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report today.
“Should Judicial Candidates Be Allowed To Solicit Campaign Money?” Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”
Access online today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued two rulings in argued cases.
1. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Holt v. Hobbs, No. 13-6827. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined. And Justice Sotomayor also issued a concurring opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.
2. And Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review today in any new cases.
The Court issued a per curiam opinion in Christeson v. Roper, No. 14-6873. Justice Samuel A. Alito , Jr. issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined.
And in Plumley v. Austin, No. 14-271, Justice Thomas issued a dissent, in which Justice Antonin Scalia joined, from the denial of certiorari.
In early news coverage, Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Retailers Rejected by U.S. Supreme Court on Debit-Card Fees“; and “KBR Rejected by High Court on Military Contractor Shield.”
And Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court declines challenge to debit card rules.
“On Same-Sex Marriage, No Way to Dodge the Question; If the Supreme Court requires states to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, then it cannot allow states to refuse to celebrate such marriages themselves”: Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.
“Hillsborough case at heart of Supreme Court arguments on judges’ fundraising”: The Tampa Bay Times has this report. In addition, the newspaper has an editorial titled “Keep Florida ban on judicial candidates seeking campaign cash.”
Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Can judicial candidates solicit donations? Supreme Court to weigh case.”
And in Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Robert Everett Johnson and
Paul Sherman will have an op-ed titled “Tying Up the First Amendment With Red Tape: A Supreme Court case this week challenges a Florida fundraising restriction as an arbitrary form of censorship.” You can freely access the full text of the op-ed via Google.
“Supreme Court may scale back housing discrimination law”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.
“Roberts Court could cripple another key civil rights law”: Zachary Roth of msnbc has this report today.
“The Supreme Court’s Billion-Dollar Mistake”: Law professor David Cole has this post online today at the blog of The New York Review of Books.
“Will the Roberts Court Strike Down Another Campaign-Finance Law?” Jeff Shesol has this post online today at The New Yorker.
And online at The Atlantic, law professor Garrett Epps has an essay titled “When Can a Judge Ask, ‘Write Me a Check’? Sheltered in their bubble, the Justices will decide whether states can keep their judges from putting the arm on donors.”
“Justices weigh would-be judges’ appeals for campaign cash”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.
“The Most Sarcastic Justice”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has posted this essay online at SSRN.
“Supreme Court to take up Calif. raisin case for 2nd time”: Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire has this report today.
“Lawyers as heroes or goats in the fight over same-sex marriage”: Tom Goldstein has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”
“Scalia Lands at Top of Sarcasm Index of Justices. Shocking.” Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.
“On gay marriage, Supreme Court to weigh equal rights and states’ rights”: David G. Savage has this front page article in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.
“The Year of Marriage Equality”: Richard Socarides has this post online at The New Yorker.
“How a once-small business made millions building the software behind Obamacare; And why it may make millions more if the Supreme Court now undercuts the law”: The Washington Post has this report.
“Justice Ann Walsh Bradley says constitutional amendment improperly being used as ‘tool to settle political scores'”: The Capital Times of Madison, Wisconsin has this report.
