“Chen seeks a second chance”: Lyle Denniston has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

Supreme Court of Canada recognizes right to doctor-assisted suicide: You can access today’s unanimous ruling of Canada’s highest court at this link.

In early news coverage, Sean Fine of The Toronto Globe and Mail reports that “Canadians have right to doctor-assisted suicide, Supreme Court rules.”

The Toronto Star has a news update headlined “Supreme Court strikes down assisted suicide ban; Canada’s highest court has struck down the law against assisted suicide and ordered Parliament to give desperately suffering patients greater control over how they die.”

The Ottawa Citizen has a news update headlined “In historic ruling, Supreme Court strikes down ban on doctor-assisted death.”

The Vancouver Sun has a news update headlined “Landmark Canadian Supreme Court ruling favours ‘death with dignity.’”

CBC News reports that “Doctor-assisted suicide allowed by Supreme Court in specific cases; 1993 Rodriguez decision ruled against giving terminally ill the right to die.”

And The Canadian Press reports that “SCC reverses course on doctor-assisted death.”

“Death and taxes: Obamacare fight is a war of statistics.” Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

“New rule lets inmates grow longer beards; Suit lost, prisons to allow religion-based exceptions”: Today’s edition of The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette contains an article that begins, “Arkansas prison system inmates can now grow a beard — without length limitations — if their religion dictates it.”

“Teen sex a crime? Ky high court to hear case.” The Courier-Journal of Louisville, Kentucky has this report.

“Judge Kistler ‘Honored’ by Nomination to Pa. Supreme Court, Regrets Having to Leave Centre County”: Michael Martin Garrett had this article online yesterday at StateCollege.com.

“Ten things to know about the Carter v. Canada case on assisted suicide”: Sean Fine of The Toronto Globe and Mail has an article that begins, “On Friday, the Supreme Court will rule on whether individuals who are suffering unbearably have a constitutional right to control their own death.”

When the Supreme Court of Canada issues its ruling in this case on Friday morning, I will provide a link to it.

“Who Doesn’t Love a Hotel Discount? The Taxman; Expedia could owe $847 million in unpaid hotel taxes.” Bloomberg News has this report. According to the article, “In coming weeks, Hawaii’s Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision in the biggest pending tax case.”

“If you solicit spam emails, you can’t sue for receiving them — 4th Circuit”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued yesterday.

“End the cameraphobia in the Supreme Court”: This editorial appears in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.

“Florida’s top court to decide if gay sex constitutes ‘intercourse'”: Reuters has this report.

The video of Wednesday’s oral argument in the Supreme Court of Florida can be viewed online, on demand via this link.

“Supreme Court Justice and Circuit Judges Give SLS Students Insider’s Look at Becoming a Judge”: Stanford Law School News has a report that begins, “A sterling reputation is the key driver of success for lawyers, agreed U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan and U.S. Circuit Judges Sri Srinivasan (JD/MBA ’95, BA ’89) and Raymond Kethledge during a conversation at Stanford Law School on Wednesday.”

“JPMorgan Seeks Review of ‘Seismic’ Ruling on GM Loan”: Linda Sandler of Bloomberg News has a report that begins, “JPMorgan Chase & Co. asked an appeals to reconsider a negative ruling on its $1.5 billion loan to General Motors Co.’s bankrupt predecessor, saying the decision caused a ‘seismic’ shift in the law.”

“Conviction of Australian at Guantanamo court in doubt”: The Associated Press has this report.

Earlier, at ProPublica, Raymond Bonner had an article headlined “U.S. Acknowledges Conviction of David Hicks, Guantanamo Detainee, Should Not Stand; Prosecutors acknowledge they accepted a guilty plea from an Australian man under a law that was passed after his alleged criminal conduct.” ProPublica has posted online a copy of the United State’s brief, which has not yet been officially released for public access.

Alycia Lane v. CBS Broadcasting and Larry Mendte decided today by the Pa. Superior Court: You can access today’s unpublished, non-precedential ruling of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania at this link.

Back in March 2013, Molly Eichel of The Philadelphia Daily News had an article about the trial court’s ruling headlined “Mendte fresh: Ex-CBS 3 anchor cleared in suit.”

“Supporters Say Imprisoned Nun Is Being Held In ‘Unfair’ Conditions”: Carrie Johnson had this audio segment, which included a comment from a retired federal appellate judge, on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“U.S. Supreme Court halts Texas execution of convicted killer”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has a report that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday put on hold the execution by Texas of convicted murderer Lester Bower as it considers whether to hear his full appeal including the assertion that his three decades on death row amount to cruel and unusual punishment.”

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

“Dying for a Conservative Cause: Republicans put liberty ahead of life.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Lethal Rejection: Will the Supreme Court’s Lethal Injection Review Kill the Death Penalty? The Supreme Court is reviewing lethal injection for the first time in seven years; Here’s what it means for the death penalty.” Annie Waldman of ProPublica has this report.

“Appeals Court Orders New Trial in Case Alleging Sexually Hostile Classroom”: Mark Walsh has this post today at the “School Law” blog of Education Week.

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s non-precedential Third Circuit ruling appears at this link.

I have decided to OPPOSE the word limit reduction on federal appellate briefs, plus an additional public comment opportunity for you: After much deliberation, I have decided to oppose the proposed amendment to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that would reduce the maximum size of a principal appellate brief from 14,000 to 12,500 words.

I will more fully (yet succinctly) explain the basis for my opposition in a public comment that I intend to submit online via this link on the afternoon of Tuesday, February 17, 2014 — the final day for the submission of public comments. Earlier public comments on this rule change proposal from particularly knowledgeable individuals indicate that the proffered motivation for this rule change is at best mistaken and at worst a subterfuge.

If federal appellate judges believe that appellate briefs ordinarily are unnecessarily long so as to pose a problem in need of correction, a variety of means exist to combat that problem. That is the debate that should be occurring right now over this proposal, which seeks to cure the supposed problem through the brute force equivalent of a bludgeon, inflicting damage far too widely.

That being said, I fully subscribe to the belief that shorter, more carefully focused appellate briefs tend to be far more powerful and effective than the alternative, and I believe that the examples of my own written appellate advocacy that I have posted online demonstrate that I have translated that belief into action. It is not unusual for appellate briefs that I file on behalf of my clients to be substantially shorter than the opposing parties’ briefs, and my clients have nonetheless prevailed in a significant number of those appeals, whether they were the appellant or the appellee.

In the preceding blog post, immediately below, I lamented the paucity of public comments that this word length reduction proposal has received. As President Lincoln is credited with saying, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt,” an observation that I defy (or perhaps confirm) here on a daily basis.

The method for offering public comments does not seem to encourage anonymous comments, and perhaps someone who fears that he or she lacks something truly profound to say or that no one might care to hear his or her views might be discouraged from adding his or her voice to the discussion. Therefore, in addition to offering my own public comment opposing this rule change proposal, I am willing to include as an addendum to my own comment the insightful comments both for and against the rule change proposal that readers of this blog wish to forward to me via email to this blog’s email address. In addition to your comment, please let me know whether I can include your name as the person who sent me the comment. I will gladly include all comments, with or without attribution as you request, that in my view meaningfully contribute to the conversation, whether or not they agree with my own views on this issue.

Only this morning, two new comments on the proposal have appeared online, one from the judges of the Tenth Circuit supporting the length reduction, and one from the general counsel of the EEOC opposing the length reduction.

New comments from the Los Angeles and New York City bar associations oppose reducing the word limit for principal appellate briefs from 14,000 to 12,500 words: You can access these newly submitted comments via this link.

The deadline for submitting comments on this proposal is 11:59 p.m. on Tuesday, February 17, 2015. Only 18 comments appear online thus far (and a few of those don’t even address the size reduction), suggesting either that appellate practitioners don’t care about the proposal, or not enough has been done to spread the word about the existence of this impending change, which will impose more than a ten percent reduction on the maximum permissible size of a party’s principal appellate brief.

“Canadian doctors drafting new rules in case doors open to assisted suicide”: The Toronto Globe and Mail has an article that begins, “If the Supreme Court of Canada takes the momentous step of striking down the law against assisted suicide on Friday, Canada’s medical profession intends to play a significant part in crafting the new rules that would govern how the gravely ill choose to die in this country.”

“Former Supreme Court justice’s civics program among MacArthur grant winners”: Julie Zauzmer of The Washington Post has this report.

“Jurisdiction stuffing as a means of combatting judicial supremacy”: Kevin C. Walsh has this post at “Mirror of Justice.”

“A Court of Review, or First View?” Richard M. Re has this post at “PrawfsBlawg.”

“Supreme Court Justice Scalia Is Focus of Arena Stage’s Political Drama The Originalist; Casting Announced”: Playbill has this report.

And TheaterMania.com reports that “Complete Casting Announced for Arena Stage’s The Originalist; John Strand’s world-premiere play offers a theatrical account of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.”

“The Supreme Court at Stake: Overturning Obamacare Would Change the Nature of the Supreme Court.” Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.

“Patent ‘Death Squad’ Rules Owners Denounce Upheld by U.S. Court”: Susan Decker of Bloomberg News has an article that begins, “A U.S. appeals court upheld rules that make it easier for companies like Google Inc. and Apple Inc. to get rid of worrisome patent litigation on the cheap.”

And at “Patently-O,” Dennis Crouch has a post titled “Patentee Loses First IPR Appeal on all Grounds.”

You can access today’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit at this link.

“California says will appeal ruling making foie gras legal”: Reuters has this report.

And The Los Angeles Times reports that “California attorney general to appeal reversal of foie gras ban.”

“4th Circ. Affirms Toss Of $600M Junk Email Suit Against Kraft”: Law360.com has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued today.

“Ginsburg says she would overturn campaign spending case”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Applying these standards to the educational context, and considering the circumstances in totality, a reasonable jury could have found that Smith created a hostile educational environment.” Today, a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued its non-precedential, unpublished ruling in appeal that I discussed in the third paragraph of this post from September 2014.

In earlier coverage of the case, which is now heading toward a third trial, The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania reported that “Pleasant Valley cleared in teacher sex-talk case; Federal jury rules district did not retaliate against student who complained about teacher’s methods.” Paragraph three of my earlier post linked to the audio of the Third Circuit oral argument in this appeal.

“Kane challenges authority of special prosecutor in leak case”: Craig R. McCoy of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this news update.

Brad Bumsted of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has a news update headlined “AG Kane asks Pa. Supreme Court to end grand jury case against her.”

Steve Esack of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania has a news update headlined “Kathleen Kane asks state Supreme Court to toss grand jury case against her.”

Wallace McKelvey of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania reports that “Kathleen Kane’s attorneys lay out case to the Supreme Court.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Pennsylvania attorney general says special prosecutor appointed without authority, safeguards.”

You can access at this link the brief that the Attorney General of Pennsylvania filed today in the case captioned In re: The Thirty-fifth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, Petition of: Attorney General, Kathleen G. Kane. And you can access the other documents filed in the case via this link.

“Wolf names two for Supreme Court”: Amy Worden of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this news update.

Charles Thompson of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has a news update headlined “Gov. Tom Wolf nominates two for Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacancies.”

And Peter Hall of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania has a news update headlined “Tom Wolf nominates two for state Supreme Court.”

In March 2014, StateCollege.com published an interview headlined “Lunch with Mimi: Judge Thomas Kistler.” One of the questions asked and answered toward the end of the interview is “Do you have any aspirations to go to a higher-level court?”