“Gay marriage pioneer, free from skeptics, prepares for Supreme Court”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Same-sex marriage pioneer among lawyers for high court cases.”
NPR has posted online a podcast titled “Pop-Up Podcast: Same-Sex Marriage And The Supreme Court” featuring, among others, Nina Totenberg and Tom Goldstein.
And the ABC News program “This Week” has posted online an item headlined “Same-Sex Marriage Hearings at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know.”
“Federal Appellate Briefs Might Have to Be Shorter”: Saranac Hale Spencer will have this article in Monday’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.
“Argument preview: Execution methods: broad or narrow look?” Lyle Denniston of “SCOTUSblog” has this post today.
“Federal appeals court dismisses lawsuit in Border Patrol shooting of Juarez teen; Agent shot and killed teen in 2010”: Daniel Borunda of The El Paso Times has this news update.
And The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: Family of teen shot across border can’t sue in US.”
You can access today’s en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.
Access online the audio from this week’s three U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments: Via this link.
“Alberta judge grants Omar Khadr bail pending appeal”: Sean Fine of The Toronto Globe and Mail has this news update.
And The Edmonton Journal has a news update headlined “Former Guantanamo Bay inmate Omar Khadr to be released on bail.”
“Appeals court upholds dismissal of libel suit by Abbas’ son”: Sam Hananel of The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.
“Arpaio: PI hired to investigate judge’s wife.” Megan Cassidy of The Arizona Republic has an article that begins, “In a bombshell diversion from his contempt-of-court proceedings, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio testified under oath Thursday that his attorneys had hired a private agent to investigate the wife of the federal judge who ruled that the Sheriff’s Office had engaged in racial profiling.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Arizona sheriff reveals investigation into judge’s wife.”
“Bill would create ethics code for Supreme Court justices”: The Hill has this report.
Justices’ Questions, Answered: Previously on Same-Sex Marriage Arguments at the Supreme Court . . . Law professor Kenji Yoshino has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Meet the lawyers who will argue the gay marriage case”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com has this report.
And Oralandar Brand-Williams of The Detroit News has articles headlined “Same-sex marriage case in court: Attorney John Bursch” and “Same-sex marriage case in court: Attorney Mary Bonauto.”
“King: Ban federal courts from overturning traditional marriage laws.” The Des Moines Register has an article that begins, “U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Kiron, has introduced a bill in Congress that would ban federal judges from ruling on lawsuits aimed at overturning state bans on same-sex marriage.”
“Alabama married same-sex couples caught in limbo”: The Montgomery Advertiser has this report.
“Gay marriage defies opinions of American majority, legal brief tells Supreme Court”: Cheryl Wetzstein of The Washington Times has this report.
“Tennessee at forefront as gay marriage case goes to Supreme Court”: The Tennessean has this report.
“John Roberts’ big moment: Will he anger conservatives again?” Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com has this report today.
“How a Cincinnati judge could shape the gay marriage case”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com today has a report that begins, “Judge Jeffrey Sutton doesn’t have a lot of company on the appeals courts these days.”
“ESPN Beats Pro Wrestler in Dispute Over Rebroadcast of Old Matches; An appellate ruling could be a good sign for broadcasters as they fight in court with college athletes”: Eriq Gardner had this post yesterday at the “Hollywood, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter.
You can access Wednesday’s per curiam ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at this link.
“End the Supreme Court’s Ban on Cameras”: Jonathan Sherman has this op-ed in today’s edition of The New York Times.
FRAP Advisory Committee agrees to scrap “3-day rule” for responding to documents served by electronic means: Also yesterday, after much discussion, the FRAP Advisory Committee agreed to approve an amendment that would eliminate the extra three days that the FRAP now provide for responding to documents served through electronic means, including via CM/ECF.
A similar change is scheduled to go into effect in the procedural rules applicable to district and bankruptcy courts. However, appellate attorneys on the FRAP Advisory Committee expressed concerns that the 14-day period for filing a reply brief is a uniquely short time for filing such an important document. As a result, the FRAP Advisory Committee plans to consider in the very near future whether the 14-day period for filing a reply brief should be extended to 17 or 21 days. In addition, the FRAP Advisory Committee intends to send a letter to the chief judges of all the U.S. Courts of Appeals explaining that expanding the time for reply briefs will remain under consideration, and that courts should consider continuing to afford 17 days in which to file reply briefs in the interim.
Lastly, the FRAP Advisory Committee is encouraging the Standing Committee to include a statement in the comments encouraging courts to freely grant extensions when documents are served electronically late at night or late at night before a weekend or holiday weekend. However, because the elimination of the extra three days following e-service will go into effect in district courts and bankruptcy courts at the same time it goes into effect in appellate courts, such a comment will only be included in the FRAP if the comment is also deemed acceptable for inclusion with the rules governing district courts and bankruptcy courts. Already, certain of the advisory committees overseeing those other rules have expressed their opposition to adding such a comment.
“Senate Confirms Loretta Lynch as Attorney General After Long Delay”: Jennifer Steinhauer of The New York Times has an article that begins, “After one of the nation’s most protracted cabinet-level confirmation delays, the Senate Thursday approved Loretta E. Lynch to be attorney general. She is the first African-American woman to hold the position.”
“What Same-Sex Marriage Teaches About Social Change and the Supreme Court”: Law professor Michael C. Dorf has this essay online at Justia’s Verdict.
And at his “Dorf on Law” blog, he has a related post titled “What’s at Stake in Next Week’s SSM Oral Argument?”
“Constitution Check: Might the Supreme Court take a pass on same-sex marriage now?” Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.
Reader email regarding FRAP word limit reduction compromise: A reader emails:
I am an appellate practitioner in Texas who read with interest your summary of the proposed reduction of the briefing word limit. I am encouraged by the idea that, under the proposed new rule, appellate courts will grant leave for expanded word volume more readily. But I wonder whether any discussion occurred about disrupting current judicial attitudes.
For example, the Fifth Circuit requires a draft brief to be tendered with a motion to exceed the word limit, which must come ten days in advance of the brief due date. It is unclear if that draft must itself be over the default word limit or simply enough to show the complexity of the case. But, either way, this requirement stands as a practical disincentive to seeking an expansion. Attorneys may not wish to make public their unpolished drafts. Yet that may be unavoidable under this local rule, particularly when a case has been accelerated and a brief must be turned around in short order. Was there any discussion about advising circuit courts against local rules having the effect of disincentivizing motions for expanded words, or advising that the procedure for obtaining expanded words should allow that relief upon only a showing in a motion of good cause, without further obstacles?
Day two of the FRAP advisory committee’s meeting will occur tomorrow morning, and I am posting this comment so that the committee may be able to take this concern into consideration at that time.
“Justices Drop Another Clue About Obamacare’s Future”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.
“BofA questions judge’s impartiality as it appeals big fraud verdict”: Jonathan Stempel and Nate Raymond of Reuters have this report.
And Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has a report titled “BofA ‘Hustle’ appeal tests Justice’s novel use of old S&L statute.”
You can access the 91-page, 20,900-word brief that Bank of America filed yesterday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.
“View from the Courtroom: Justices sometimes face off with each other in raisin case.” Mark Walsh has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
“How Wall Street came out on gay marriage”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.
“Meet The Lawyer Who Set The Stage For Nationwide Marriage Equality”: Sahil Kapur of TPM DC has a report that begins, “Paul M. Smith keeps a cutout of a 12-year-old Washington Post newspaper article on the wall of his law office near the White House.”
“Monroeville board: No more ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ after this year.” Columnist John Archibald has this essay at AL.com.
“After court adjourns, 9th Circuit judge’s movie nights are a hit”: Maura Dolan has this front page article in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.
A 13,000-word limit and easing expansions of that limit in cases meriting more words unanimously clears the Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure after extended discussion: Today I was pleased to attend the FRAP advisory committee’s meeting in Philadelphia, at which the committee considered, now that the comment period has concluded, the pending proposal to reduce the maximum word limit for federal appellate briefs from 14,000 words to 12,500 words.
The three lawyers in private practice on the committee each spoke during the initial round of discussion to oppose the reduction proposal, expressing somewhat differing degrees of opposition. The lawyer in private practice who serves as the Standing Committee’s liaison to the the Appellate Committee spoke in favor of the word count reduction proposal. All four federal appellate judges on the committee spoke strongly in favor of the proposal.
Ultimately, the Appellate Committee’s chair had a compromise ready to offer all concerned — adopting a 13,000-word limit and adding into the rule’s comments a statement urging federal appellate courts to recognize that in complicated cases, or cases involving multiple parties, those courts should ease their current reluctance to grant expansions of the word limit.
To be sure, the committee today approved a reduction of two-thirds of the amount of the reduction originally sought, which is not a compromise precisely in the middle between the current limit and the smaller word limit published for comment. However, setting the new word limit at 13,250 (and a corresponding reply brief limit of 6,625 words) — representing the exact midpoint between those two options — would result in word limits that are much more difficult to remember. And adopting a new word limit of 13,500 words wouldn’t achieve much of a word count reduction, while likewise producing the still difficult-to-remember reply brief limit of 6,750.
A title for this post that I was originally contemplating would have stated, “Bad lawyers ruin it for themselves and for many of the rest of us.” In essence, the comments that the judges on the committee made in favor of a word limit reduction focused largely on the unnecessary prolixity of so many of the briefs received in cases viewed as not very difficult, filed by lawyers who are not among the most talented appellate practitioners. To the extent that those lawyers’ prolixity caused them to file briefs within the 13,001-word to 14,000-word range, such lawyers will now be limited to filing briefs not longer than 13,000 words. It may also end up that talented, well-known appellate advocates, and government lawyers, will have an easier time obtaining expansions of the word limits than lawyers who are unknown to the judges considering such motions.
If all goes as planned, appellate judges, once this amendment goes into effect, should become much more willing to grant word limit expansion motions. Whether the implementation of this amendment will cause federal appellate judges to conclude that their time is not being wasted as much by unnecessarily long briefs remains to be seen, especially since the percent of briefs being filed that fall between 13,001 words and 14,000 words is already quite small.
Four more things must occur before this rule amendment goes into effect. The Standing Committee must approve the amendment. The Judicial Conference of the United States must approve the amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court must sign-off on the amendment. And the U.S. Congress must refrain from vetoing the amendment.
Individual federal appellate courts will have the ability under the amendment to retain the current 14,000-word limit or any other limit larger than 13,000 words. My expectation, however, is that none of the 13 federal courts of appeals will opt-out of the word count reduction once it goes into effect.
Readers who wish to comment on today’s developments are invited to send me an email for possible publication here. In addition, assuming that the word limit amendment takes effect, this blog will follow with interest reports from readers discussing the willingness of the various federal appellate courts to grant word limit expansions in individual cases and the delay involved in obtaining such expansions.
Programming note: During the day on Thursday, I will be observing the meeting of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure in Philadelphia. As a result, new posts won’t appear here until Thursday evening, although some new activity may appear in the interim on this blog’s Twitter feed.
When new posts do appear here Thursday evening, I will report on the latest news regarding the pending FRAP briefing word limit reductions, which are on the advisory committee’s agenda for further consideration tomorrow.
“Elizabeth Weaver, controversial Michigan justice, dies at 74”: The Associated Press has this report.
And The Detroit News reports that “Former Supreme Court justice Weaver dies.”
“Views of Supreme Court Little Changed as Major Rulings Loom; Ideological Divide in Views of Court’s Ideology”: The Pew Research Center has issued this news release. You can access the complete survey report at this link.
