“Court icons Scalia and Ginsburg: Together at the peak.” Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

Wolf writes, “What looms ahead for these two legal icons is a political reckoning. They must balance their roles as leaders of the court’s conservative and liberal wings against the risks involved in sticking around too long — or leaving too soon.”

“Appeals court to hear case of Mississippi death row inmate who pleaded guilty to rape, murder”: So reported The Associated Press back in September 2014. Yesterday, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision affirming the district court’s denial of a writ of habeas corpus.

The Fifth Circuit’s decision contains this unusual account of what, presumably according to the habeas petitioner’s own description, triggered his murderous conduct:

Thomas Loden worked as a recruiter for the United States Marine Corps in Vicksburg, Mississippi, where he lived with his wife and daughter. He had travelled to Itawamba County, Mississippi, on June 21, 2000 to visit his ailing grandmother, Rena Loden, at her farm. On June 22, Loden claims he spoke to his wife on the phone, and she told him that she had just had “phone sex” with a partner at the law firm at which she worked as a paralegal and that she planned on having sexual intercourse with that partner while Loden was away.

“Allstate cleared of EEOC retaliation charges”: Business Insurance has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued yesterday.

First you leave the U.S. Supreme Court, next you misstate what Title of the U.S. Code a civil rights claim under section 1983 arises: Retired Justice David H. Souter yesterday issued this unanimous opinion on behalf of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The opinion’s second sentence begins:

This action brought by Caesars under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1983 includes counts [seeking the following relief].

The section 1983 in question appears in Title 42; Title 28, by contrast, doesn’t even contain a section 1983.

Of course, the statute now codified at 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 traces its history back to 1871. Apparently it was once codified in Title 8 of the U.S. Code.

In Justice Souter’s defense, Westlaw’s CTA database reveals 10 other federal appellate court decisions that cite to 28 U.S.C. sec. 1983, the most recent of which is from 1996. Notably, six of those ten decisions originated from the Tenth Circuit during 1995 and 1996. All but one of those 10 decisions are unpublished, and the published one contains the error in a block quote. Presumably Westlaw will correct this apparently de minibus citation error when it appears in opinions designated for publication.

“Religion in the Public Service: A Conversation with Clarence Thomas and John Danforth.” Yale Law School has posted online at this link the video of this recent event.

Update: The video is also available on YouTube.

“Justices Ginsburg And Scalia: A Perfect Match Except For Their Views On The Law.” This audio segment featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

And Richard Wolf of USA Today has a report headlined “Scalia and Ginsburg are buddies beyond the bench.”

“Did Chief Justice John Roberts Save the Affordable Care Act?” Jeffrey Toobin had this post online yesterday at The New Yorker.

And in yesterday’s edition of The New York Times, columnist Gail Collins had an op-ed titled “An Ode to Obamacare.”

“Gay marriage: Hearts of Dixie — As Alabama goes, so goes America.” This article will appear in the February 14, 2015 issue of The Economist.

“Appeals court: Marshals can’t be sued for excessive force.” Sam Hananel of The Associated Press has this report.

And Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. court backs law enforcement officers in black teen’s shooting.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.

“Lawyers win exemptions from money-laundering law”: Sean Fine of The Toronto Globe and Mail has a news update that begins, “The Supreme Court has declared sections of a federal anti-terrorism and money-laundering law to be unconstitutional, concluding a legal battle seen by Canada’s lawyers as a test of their profession’s independence.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada at this link.

“The Architect of the Obamacare Court Challenge Just Undermined Republicans’ Victory Strategy”: Brian Beutler has this essay online today at The New Republic.

Pennsylvania, which hasn’t executed anyone since 1999, now really, really, really won’t be executing anyone: Angela Couloumbis of The Philadelphia Inquirer has a news update headlined “Wolf halts death penalty in Pa.”

Karen Langley of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a news update headlined “Governor places moratorium on death penalty in Pennsylvania.”

Wallace McKelvey of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has an update headlined “Gov. Tom Wolf declares moratorium on death penalty in Pa.”

And The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has a news update headlined “Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf imposes death penalty moratorium.”

You can access Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf’s “Death Penalty Moratorium Declaration” at this link.

“Alabama school wants alleged rape victim to reveal name”: The Associated Press has this report on a case pending on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

“[T]raditionally the Rules Committees do not amend a rule unless there is a very good reason to do so”: This post, including its title, collects quotations from the FRAP Advisory Committee‘s draft minutes from the session at which the controversial proposed briefing word limit reduction amendment was discussed in greatest detail and approved for initial publication by a 6-to-4 vote.

“An appellate judge * * * wondered whether the bar would be shocked by a proposal to reduce length limits to 12,500 words”;

“[S]ome circuits are unwilling to grant permission to file an over-length brief”;

“An attorney member responded that he is generally hesitant to request such permission [to file an over-length brief]; another attorney member noted that he shares this reluctance. Mr. Letter noted that the circuits vary in their willingness to permit over-length briefs. An attorney member suggested that, since 1998, circumstances may have changed; perhaps the law is more complex, and perhaps lawyers are more prone to prolixity.”;

“The more stringent the length limit, the more likely that a litigant might fail to brief an issue that the court believes should have been addressed.”;

“In complex cases, lawyers need the full 14,000 words, and a reduction to 12,500 would force lawyers to spend time trying to reduce the length yet further or seeking permission to file an over-length brief.”;

“An attorney member stated that he opposed the reduction in briefing length limits. If attorneys use the full permitted length, it is because the case requires it.”;

“An appellate judge member reported a different experience; in the Eleventh Circuit, he said, lawyers tend to use all the space that is permitted to them. This judge member noted that the choice of length limit presents a tradeoff: One prefers shorter briefs when possible, but in complex cases one wants the briefs to help work out all the issues.”;

“Another appellate judge member stated that he supported shortening the length limits; he reported that briefs seem to be about 60 pages long now, and 50 pages would be preferable.”

With regard to that final comment, it is worth noting that even the proposed 12,500-word limit for principal federal appellate briefs would not necessitate the filing of briefs shorter than 60 pages, as this Brief for Appellant that I filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 2011 demonstrates. It contained 12,195 words and consisted of 64 pages of Century Schoolbook 14-point type. If the desire is to avoid briefs any longer than 50 pages, perhaps a 10,150-word limit for principal federal appellate briefs should be adopted.

Next Tuesday is the deadline for public comments supporting or opposing the proposed briefing word limit reduction. Comments must be submitted online via this link.

“Clergy-marriage bill clears Oklahoma House; The bill would codify ministers’ rights to refuse to perform weddings”: This article appears in today’s edition of The Tulsa World.

And Reuters reports that “Oklahoma bill would protect clergy who won’t perform gay marriages.”

“The Scalia/Ginsburg Reality Show: A ‘not 100 percent sober’ friendship.” Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

“High court’s odd couple on parasailing, elephants and not being ‘100% sober'”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com has this report.

“As sign-up deadline nears, a new risk for Obama health law”: The Associated Press has this report.

“LePage asks U.S. Supreme Court to review Medicaid case; The governor’s request to remove about 6,000 low-income young adults from the Medicaid rolls was rejected by a federal court”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Kentucky high court weighs whether voluntary underage sex should be a crime”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Federal judge clears the way for gay marriage to start in Mobile”: Brendan Kirby of The Mobile Press-Register has this news update.

Campbell Robertson of The New York Times has a news update headlined “U.S. Judge Orders Alabama Official to Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Federal judge in Alabama orders county to wed gay couples.”

“Lawyers ask for broad order making clear that gay marriage is law of land in Alabama”: Brendan Kirby of The Mobile Press-Register has this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Alabama county’s refusal to wed gays goes to federal court.”

“Chris Cuomo Battles AL Justice Roy Moore in Epic 25 Minute Interview on Gay Marriage”: Mediaite has this post linking to the video of the interview.

And Brian Lyman of The Montgomery Advertiser reports on the interview in a news update headlined “Sparks fly as Roy Moore, Chris Cuomo talk gay marriage on CNN.”

“A New Surprise Twist In The Big Anti-Obamacare Lawsuit Before SCOTUS?” Sahil Kapur of TPM DC has this report today.

“Ruth Bader Ginsburg Isn’t Giving Up Her Fight for Women’s Rights; The Supreme Court justice’s biggest battle begins with the male majority sitting next to her”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

You can view the video of the Bloomberg News interview yesterday with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg via this link.

In reader email: A reader sends along an email with the subject line “Praise for ‘Down with Notorious R.B.G.‘ post.”

The reader writes:

As a daily reader of your blog, I take it for what it is: a serious effort to assist others in staying abreast of issues in appellate law. I treat time spent on your site as professional development time, and its reading is normally a somber and deliberate act.

So you can imagine my surprise when, in reading your post this morning captioned “Down with ‘Notorious R.B.G.”, I found that the example you cited for the meaning of that idiomatic phrase was Naughty by Nature’s OPP. My colleagues’ distraction and the coffee splashes on my desk are a small price to pay for that sort of quality laughter.

Why your comments for or against the proposed FRAP briefing word limit reductions can make a difference: Apparently this controversial proposal was approved for publication by the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules by a vote of 6-to-4.

The closeness of that initial vote to publish the proposal for public comment indicates that the proposal’s fate remains unclear. The draft minutes of the Advisory Committee from the session at which the word limit reduction proposal was discussed in greatest detail, before the 6-to-4 vote was taken, can be accessed here.

Public comments on the proposal can be submitted up until 11:59 p.m. eastern time next Tuesday via this link.

“Expanding Our Understanding of Narrowing Precedent”: Kevin C. Walsh had this post yesterday at JOTWELL.

Access today’s newly posted public comments on the FRAP word limit reduction proposal: The Center for Constitutional Litigation has submitted this comment opposing the reduction.

Jason C. Rylander, Senior Attorney, Defenders of Wildlife, has submitted this comment opposing the reduction.

And attorney Stanley Neustadter has submitted this comment supporting the reduction.

Whether you oppose or support the word limit reduction proposal, you can submit your own public comment via this link.

“Appeals Court to Hear Petition to Change Boston Marathon Trial Venue”: Katharine Q. Seelye of The New York Times has this news update.

Milton J. Valencia of The Boston Globe has a news update headlined “Court to hear defense request to move Tsarnaev trial.”

And Laurel J. Sweet and Owen Boss of The Boston Herald have a news update headlined “Court orders hearing on Tsarnaev bid to move Marathon trial.”

“Pawtucket murder victim was brother of R.I. Supreme Court justice”: The Providence Journal has this news update.

“Appeals court to hold hearing on Tsarnaev bid to move trial”: The Associated Press has this report.

And Reuters reports that “U.S. appeals court to hear arguments on moving Boston bombing trial.”

You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which includes a statement concurring in part and dissenting in part from Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella, at this link.

“Down with ‘Notorious R.B.G.'” Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com has this report today. The article suggests that the headline means to convey the positive, rather than the negative, meaning of “down with” (see, e.g.).

“Third Circuit rules narrowly on ‘authorization’ under the CFAA”: Orin Ker has this post today at “The Volokh Conspiracy” about an unpublished, non-precedential ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued last Thursday.

“Federal court reverses injunctions by Pittsburgh judges on contraception mandate”: Torsten Ove has this article in today’s edition of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Third Circuit ruling can be accessed here.