Whew, it’s fixed! The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit dug out from the snow today to issue this errata sheet correcting a minor citation error noted in this earlier post.

“Another leak in Kane case”: Craig R. McCoy and Angela Couloumbis of The Philadelphia Inquirer have a news update that begins, “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is angry that the leak case before it has sprung yet another leak. The high court has asked the agency that oversees lawyers to consider disciplining Lanny J. Davis, one of state Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s lawyers, for making public a sealed order from the high court last month.”

And Charles Thompson of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has a news update headlined “Pa. Supreme Court seeks inquiry into release of once-sealed order in Kathleen Kane case.”

“Mass. man held without bail in murder of R.I. Supreme Court justice’s brother”: The Providence Journal has this news update.

“Florida Supreme Court blocks execution of Orlando killer Jerry Correll”: The Orlando Sentinel has this news update.

The Tampa Bay Times has a news update headlined “Jerry Correll execution stayed, pending lethal injection ruling.”

And Reuters reports that “Florida puts executions on hold as high court debates anesthetic.”

You can access today’s order of the Supreme Court of Florida, and the opinions concurring in and dissenting therefrom, at this link.

“How Judge Hanen was able to rule against President Obama’s immigration program”: Eric Posner has this post today at his blog.

Access even more newly posted public comments on the FRAP word limit reduction proposal: The appellate and Supreme Court litigation practice groups at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP; Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP; Arnold & Porter LLP; Jenner & Block LLP; Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Molo Lamken LLP; Morrison & Foerster LLP; OMelveny & Myers LLP; Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; Sidley Austin LLP; and Vinson & Elkins LLP have jointly submitted this public comment opposing the word limit reduction proposal.

The Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice Group of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP has submitted this public comment opposing the word limit reduction proposal.

The New York State Bar Association’s Committee on Courts of Appellate Jurisdiction has submitted this public comment opposing the word limit reduction proposal.

Dershowitz, Eiger & Adelson, P.C. has submitted this public comment opposing the word limit reduction proposal.

And the United States Department of Justice, via the Solicitor General’s Office, has submitted this public comment supporting the word limit reduction proposal subject to “an important caveat.”

“Judge’s immigration ruling adds to Obama’s list of potential legal pitfalls”: David Nakamura and Juliet Eilperin of The Washington Post have this report.

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Federal judge halts Obama’s executive action on illegal immigration.”

Michael D. Shear and Ashley Parker of The New York Times have an article headlined “After Judge’s Ruling, Obama Delays Immigration Actions.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Federal judge blocks immigrant benefits.”

“‘Too Many Notes’? An Empirical Study of Advocacy in Federal Appeals.” Law professors Gregory C. Sisk and Michael Heise recently posted this paper online at SSRN (via Professor Sisk’s public comment posted online late today in response to the proposed FRAP amendments).

I have just submitted my public comment opposing the proposed FRAP briefing word limit reductions: You can access it online at this link.

I thank everyone who has taken the time to submit public comments either opposing or supporting this controversial proposed amendment. The deadline for submitting public comments is 11:59 p.m. eastern time tonight, and public comments must be submitted online via this link.

Unlike when the Appellate Rules Advisory Committee was considering the amendment to permit advocates to cite to non-precedential rulings, where the momentum always appeared to favor the approval of that amendment, in the instance of the word limit reduction proposal the momentum necessarily appeared at the outset to favor reaching a bad outcome, as reflected by the proposal’s initial approval for publication and the solicitation of public comments.

I am heartened by the fact that so many readers of this blog and others have taken the time and invested the effort to go on record with their very persuasive reasons for opposing this particular proposed amendment. Although it is too soon to declare victory, I believe that momentum has turned in our favor and that the proposed word limit reduction amendment is unlikely to achieve final approval.

Supreme Court and Appellate Practice of Mayer Brown LLP has submitted a comment opposing the proposed FRAP briefing word limit reductions: You can view the comment, submitted online today, by clicking here. The comment bears quite an impressive signature line.

Richard A. Samp, chief counsel of Washington Legal Foundation, has submitted a comment opposing the proposed FRAP briefing word limit reductions: You can view the comment, submitted online today, by clicking here.

I am currently in the midst of finalizing my own public comment, which I am intending to submit by 5 p.m. eastern time today via this link. The deadline for submitting public comments is 11:59 p.m. eastern time today.

“Hundreds of South Carolina Inmates Sent to Solitary Confinement Over Facebook”: The “Deeplinks” blog of the Electronic Frontier Foundation had this post last Thursday.

And in related coverage, The Telegraph (UK) reports that “Prisoner gets 37 years in solitary confinement for secret Facebook posts; A South Carolina prisoner may regret spending all that time on Facebook.”

“Full interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg”: msnbc has posted the video at this link.

Meanwhile, those who oppose cameras at the U.S. Supreme Court can opt instead to read a transcript of the interview.

Today’s “Appellate Rules and Forms Public Hearing” in Washington, D.C. has been postponed due to the snowstorm: See the notice reflected here (scroll down). Once the hearing is rescheduled, I will let readers know.

“Ruth Bader Ginsburg on marriage, sexism and pushups”: Irin Carmon of msnbc has this report today.

“The case against cheating prosecutors”: This editorial, which focuses on an example from the Ninth Circuit, appeared recently in The Los Angeles Times.

A 140-character concurrence: Orin Kerr tweeted at 12:51 a.m. eastern time today, “Been enjoying @howappealing’s blogging against the reduction in appellate brief word limits. I agree with him, especially for crim cases.”*

——–

*Technically speaking, Orin’s tweet actually only contains 137 characters using Twitter’s method of counting.

Access today’s newly posted public comments on the FRAP word limit reduction proposal: Seven new comments appeared online today, six of which oppose the proposal and one of which contains a tepid endorsement.

The Office of General Counsel of the Securities and Exchange Commission posted this comment opposing the word limit reduction proposal.

The American Bar Association’s Council of Appellate Lawyers has posted this very persuasive comment opposing the word limit reduction. You will find appended to the organization’s official comment a series of comments largely but not exclusively against the word limit reduction proposal that council members submitted.

I have previously linked to the comment from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers opposing the word limit reduction proposal.

Attorney Walter K. Pyle has posted this comment opposing the word limit reduction.

Attorney Richard L. Stanley has posted this comment opposing the word limit reduction.

And attorney Jonathan Block has posted this comment opposing the word limit reduction.

The public comment period expires at midnight eastern time tonight. Public comments may only be submitted online via this link.

“Republican lawmakers hold the line against Obamacare at state level”: This front page article appears in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.

And Reuters reports that “Obamacare rescue ruled out by some states, others weigh options.”

Some FRAP briefing word limit expansion horror stories from the Third Circuit — your mileage may vary: If the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure are amended to reduce the word limit for principal appellate briefs from 14,000 words to 12,500 words, all federal appellate courts are certain to receive a larger number of motions seeking to expand the word limits applicable to particular appeals.

Whether an increased volume of such motions on a grand scale is or is not a good thing is something I will leave for others to decide. The purpose of this post is to describe what happened with two particular word limit expansion motions pertaining to criminal appeals filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

In United States v. Auernheimer, No. 13-1816 (3d Cir.), the Third Circuit in April 2014 — only three weeks after oral argument — issued a decision that resulted in the defendant’s immediate release from federal prison. The federal government thereafter decided not to initiate any new charges against the defendant.

The docket entries in that case reflect that on August 5, 2013, the federal government filed a motion for leave to file a brief for appellee containing 26.495 words in order to adequately respond not only to the brief for appellant but also to all of the amicus briefs filed in support of the appellant’s side. On October 14, 2013, the appellant withdrew his motion to strike the federal government’s brief, thereby making the federal government’s word limit expansion motion unopposed as of that date.

The Third Circuit, however, did not enter an order granting the federal government’s motion to file an oversized brief for appellee until December 19, 2013. Because it took more than four months to resolve the motion, over two months of which the motion was unopposed, it is fair to say that the defendant was unnecessarily forced to spend two to four additional months in federal prison as the result of an unresolved briefing word limit expansion motion.

Lest you think that the delay in Auernheimer was unique, permit me to refer to the criminal appeal that I argued in the Third Circuit last month. In that case, on October 11, 2013, counsel for appellant sought leave to file a brief for appellant containing not more than 18,250 words. The federal government filed no opposition to that motion, rendering the motion unopposed some 15 days later. On March 28, 2014 — nearly six months later — the Third Circuit entered order granting permission for appellant to file an opening brief not longer than 16,100 words.

Perhaps these two instances of inordinate delays surrounding word limit expansion motions are atypical, but they certainly do not cause me to favor a regime in which the federal appellate courts must handle an even larger volume of word limit expansion motions than those courts are currently facing.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is closed today due to the snowstorm: See this notice.

“The Federal Circuit’s New ‘Authorized Acquirer’ Restriction on Patent Exhaustion”: Samuel Ernst had this post yesterday at “Patently-O” discussing the recent ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (also closed today due to the snowstorm) in Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC v. The New York Times Co.

My initial coverage of the ruling on the day of its issuance focused on the fact that the highly talented and exceptionally experienced appellate lawyers for the parties in that case all filed appellate briefs that were considerably in excess of the new word limits now under consideration for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. I also had this follow-up post linking to news coverage of the ruling.

“In Alabama, Obstruction of Justice on Marriage”: Kenneth Jost had this post yesterday at his blog, “Jost On Justice.”

“The Incredible Shrinking Lawsuit: The Decomposition Of King v. Burwell.” Rob Weiner has this guest post today at “Balkinization.”

“Judge Torruella calls on courts to ‘reevaluate’ Commerce Clause decisions”: Jonathan H. Adler has this post today at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

My earlier coverage of last Wednesday’s First Circuit ruling can be accessed here.

“Judge Hanen halts Obama immigration initiatives”: Emma Perez-Trevino of The Brownsville (Tex.) Herald has this report.

Julia Preston of The New York Times has a news update headlined “Obama Immigration Policy Halted by Federal Judge in Texas.”

The Washington Post reports that “Federal judge in Texas blocks Obama immigration orders.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Judge blocks Obama policy that would shield millions from deportation.”

Nathan Koppel and Miguel Bustillo of The Wall Street Journal report that “Federal Judge Stalls Obama’s Executive Action on Immigration; U.S. government expected to appeal to Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.”

USA Today reports that “Judge orders halt to Obama immigration plan.”

The Washington Times reports that “Federal judge halts Obama amnesty.”

The Associated Press reports that “Federal judge stalls Obama’s executive action on immigration“; “Gov’t will appeal ruling blocking Obama immigration plan“; and “Judge who blocked immigration action had criticized policy.”

Reuters reports that “Texas judge blocks Obama plan to protect undocumented immigrants.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Obama’s Order on Immigration Halted by Federal Judge in Texas.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico.com reports that “Judge halts Obama’s immigration action; The president lacks the legal authority to carry out his orders, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen ruled.”

And Elise Foley of The Huffington Post reports that “Judge Temporarily Halts Obama’s Immigration Actions.”

You can access yesterday’s 123-page ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas at this link (11.2 MB scanned PDF document).