“Appeals court orders judge to reverse ruling in McManus death penalty case”: The Evansville (Ind.) Courier & Press has this news update reporting on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued yesterday.

“Superior Court halts hefty penalty against lawyer”: Chris Mondics of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this news update.

“King v. Burwell: Standing Pat Or Standing Corrected.” Rob Weiner has this guest post today at “Balkinization.”

Two strikes, you’re out for non-compliant district judge in the Sixth Circuit: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit didn’t like it the first time that Senior U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow imposed a sentence of one day’s imprisonment for a defendant’s possession of a substantial number of child pornography images.

Today, the Sixth Circuit holds that it really, really didn’t like it when Judge Tarnow imposed the identical one-day sentence of imprisonment on remand. To signify its displeasure, Judge Tarnow won’t get a third chance to get it right. Today’s Sixth Circuit ruling orders the case reassigned to another district judge.

Access the newly posted public comments on the FRAP word limit reduction proposal: These may represent the final batch of public comments submitted yesterday evening before the period for submission of public comments ended at 11:59 p.m. eastern time yesterday.

Three attorneys at Wiley Rein LLP submitted this public comment opposing the word limit reduction proposal.

The State Bar of California’s Committee on Appellate Courts submitted this public comment opposing the word limit reduction proposal.

The State Bar of California’s Committee on Federal Courts submitted this public comment opposing the word limit reduction proposal.

Earthjustice, Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, and Western Environmental Law Center submitted this public comment opposing the word limit reduction proposal.

The members of the appellate, writ, and constitutional law practice at Enterprise Counsel Group, ALC submitted this public comment opposing the word limit reduction proposal.

Patrick Bryant submitted this public comment opposing the word limit reduction proposal.

Steven Finell submitted this public comment opposing the word limit reduction proposal.

And the public comment that I submitted yesterday evening opposing the word limit reduction proposal also appeared online this morning.

“Prosecutors’ Misconduct”: Retired Justice John Paul Stevens has this letter to the editor in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In the current issue of the Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia have written “Prefaces to Scalia/Ginsburg: A (Gentle) Parody of Operatic Proportions.”

You can access Derrick Wang’s libretto for “Scalia/Ginsburg: A (Gentle) Parody of Operatic Proportions,” replete with some 248 footnotes.

And for those who demand even more Ginsburg, Rebecca Giblin and Jane C. Ginsburg (the not as notorious JCG) have an article in the issue titled “We (Still) Need to Talk About Aereo: New Controversies and Unresolved Questions After the Supreme Court’s Decision.”

Perhaps one final reason to access the publication’s web site — www.lawandarts.org — is that on a quick read it appears to pertain either to lawn darts or the law of darts.

“Hanen’s order prompts protest”: This article appears in today’s edition of The Brownsville (Tex.) Herald.

“Alabama Supreme Court and federal judge could both rule on gay marriage licenses within week”: Kent Faulk of The Birmingham News has this report, along with an article headlined “Group says it has 28,000 petitions seeking ethics investigation of Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore.”

Brian Lyman of The Montgomery Advertiser reports that “Probate judge wants AG to stop same-sex marriage suit.”

And today’s edition of The Dothan Eagle contains a front page article headlined “No marriage licenses for Houston County until Supreme Court ruling.”

“Drilling rules in Munroe Falls conflict with state law, divided Ohio Supreme Court rules”: This front page article appears in today’s edition of The Akron Beacon Journal.

Today’s edition of The Cleveland Plain Dealer contains a front page article headlined “Ohio Supreme Court rules Munroe Falls regulations on oil and gas drilling are improper.”

And The Columbus Dispatch reports that “Local governments cannot regulate fracking, Ohio Supreme Court rules.”

You can access yesterday’s 4-to-3 ruling of the Supreme Court of Ohio at this link.

“If administration loses looming Supreme Court case on ObamaCare, what’s next?” Shannon Bream has this report at FoxNews.com.

“White House facing rocky legal road on immigration”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this report.

Gerstein writes, “Obama vowed to appeal the ruling, but that challenge will head to a court considered the most conservative federal appeals court in the country: the 5th Circuit. Its active judges are Republican by a 2-1 margin.”

“Head of New York’s Top Court Says Judges Should Oversee Grand Juries in Deaths Involving Police”: This article appears in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Prosecutors to appeals court: Don’t move Boston bombing case.” The Associated Press has this report.

“Rand Paul and the Libertarian Case Against Judicial Restraint; Sen. Paul takes sides in a libertarian-conservative battle over SCOTUS and the Constitution”: Damon Root had this post yesterday at Reason’s “Hit & Run” blog.

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.