“Manufacturer asks DOC to return supplies of drug used in lethal injection”: The Arizona Republic has an article that begins, “As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments next week that may prohibit the use of the drug midazolam in executions by lethal injection, at least one of the drug’s manufacturers has asked the Arizona Department of Corrections to return the product to them.”

“Supreme Court Justices Are Getting ‘Grumpier,’ Study Finds; Computer analysis of decisions going back to John Jay finds increasing dyspepsia and a ‘lower grade level’ of writing”: Paul Barrett of Bloomberg News has this report.

“In Fourth Amendment cases, it’s a toss-up”: Orin Kerr has this post today at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Tsarnaev’s Defense Tries to Recast Obscene Gesture”: Katharine Q. Seelye will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.

And Milton J. Valencia, Kevin Cullen, Patricia Wen, and John R. Ellement of The Boston Globe have a news update headlined “Stories of pain and loss described at Marathon bombing trial.”

“Appeals court overturns Barry Bonds’ obstruction conviction”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.

John Branch of The New York Times reports that “Barry Bonds’s Obstruction of Justice Conviction Is Overturned.”

Dan Levine of Reuters reports that “U.S. strikes out with prosecution of baseball great Barry Bonds.”

And Peter Blumberg of Bloomberg News reports that “Barry Bonds Wins Appeal Voiding Conviction in Steroids Probe.”

Access online the agenda book for tomorrow’s meeting of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure in Philadelphia: At this link. The meeting’s agenda can be viewed here.

The committee’s reporter, law professor Catherine T. Struve, has done her usual superlative job of summarizing both what’s at issue and the comments received concerning the pending FRAP briefing word limit reductions. Perhaps the most interesting portion of the memo is the reporter’s analysis of the comments received and the options now facing the committee.

“Supreme Court Hears Appeal in Raisin Case”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Raisin farmers appear poised to win challenge of New Deal-era program.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court justices appear ready to rule against California raisin board.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “High court may free raisin farmers from federal program.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Skeptical of Decades-Old Raisin Program; Family challenges program requiring producers to turn over part of their crop to government.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “At Supreme Court, raisin rules get scoopful of arguments.”

Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire reports that “Supreme Court struggles with Calif. raisin farmer’s takings case.”

And Lyle Denniston of “SCOTUSblog” has a post titled “Argument analysis: Imagery overwhelms the facts.”

“Don’t Hold Your Breath For Souter’s Papers”: Tony Mauro has this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.” You can freely access the full text of the post via Google News.

“Ted Cruz Showed Eloquence, and Limits, as Debater at Princeton”: Jason Horowitz will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York TImes.

And at the newspaper’s “FirstDraft” blog, Horowitz has a related post titled “Ted Cruz, the Great Debater … Sort Of.”

“Opponents of Gay Marriage Ponder Strategy as Issue Reaches Supreme Court”: Erik Eckholm will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Bonds’ obstruction conviction thrown out by appeals court”: The Associated Press has this report on the per curiam en banc ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued late today.

In addition to a two-page per curiam decision announcing the ruling of the court, a total of five judges joined in Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski‘s concurring opinion. Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith issued a concurring opinion in which a total of four judges joined, including Circuit Judge Consuelo M. Callahan, who also joined in Judge Kozinski’s concurring opinion. Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt issued a concurring opinion on his own behalf. Circuit Judge William A. Fletcher issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Circuit Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson issued a dissenting opinion that begins, “There is no joy in this dissenting judge. The per curiam and concurring opinions have struck out.”

In other coverage, Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Barry Bonds’ obstruction of justice conviction overturned.”

“Can government squeeze raisin growers? Justices have doubts.” Sam Hananel of The Associated Press has this report.

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Casts Doubt on Raisin Price-Boosting Plan.”

Update: You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Horne v. Department of Agriculture, No. 14-275.

“High court makes it easier to sue government for negligence”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

And Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court makes it easier for people to sue the government.”

Access online today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: Justice Elena Kagan delivered the consolidated opinion of the Court in United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, No. 13-1074, and United States v. June, No. 13-1075. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined. You can access the oral arguments here (Wong) and here (June).

“Boston Bombing Jury To Hear More Testimony Before Sentencing Tsarnaev”: Tovia Smith had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

And on yesterday evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered,” Smith had an audio segment titled “Sentencing Phase In Boston Marathon Bombing Trial Begins.”

“Democrats Call Lynch Confirmation Delay A New Low In Washington Gridlock”: Carrie Johnson had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“The case against gay marriage: Let my people vote.” Steven Mazie has this post at the “Democracy in America” blog of The Economist.

“Supreme Court Curbs Drug-Sniffing Dogs During Traffic Stops; Justices continue on path of strengthening constitutional protections against ‘unreasonable search and seizure'”: Jess Bravin has this article in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Judicial vacancies in Alabama pile up”: Mary Troyan of The Montgomery Advertiser has this report.

“Racial Slurs Shouldn’t Be Trademarked: The Washington football team’s name is an obstacle for interstate commerce.” Law professors Robert L. Tsai and Christine Haight Farley have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“AZ Prison Case Inspires Dissent From 9th Circuit”: Courthouse News Service has this report on an order denying rehearing en banc that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today and a dissent therefrom, in which six judges joined.

How to remedy a proposed procedural amendment grounded in a mistaken assumption? Just say “never mind” or try, try again. In proposing an amendment to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that would reduce the maximum size of appellate briefs from 14,000 to 12,500 words, the Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure has, perhaps unintentionally, unleashed a maelstrom.

The lone justification for this rule change is found in the committee note to the change:

When Rule 32(a)(7)(B)’s type-volume limits for briefs were adopted in 1998, the word limits were based on an estimate of 280 words per page. The basis for the estimate of 280 words per page is unknown, and the 1998 rules superseded at least one local circuit rule that used an estimate of 250 words per page based on a study of appellate briefs. The committee believes that the 1998 amendments inadvertently increased the length limits for briefs. Rule 32(a)(7)(B) is amended to reduce the word limits accordingly.

In September 2014, Seventh Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook filed a public comment addressing the word count reduction. Judge Easterbrook’s comment eviscerates the advisory committee’s justification for reducing the maximum allowable size of federal appellate briefs. According to Judge Easterbrook, no mistaken assumptions contributed to the choice of 14,000-word limit. Rather, that limit was selected knowingly and intentionally, in part to avoid precipitating the influx of word-count extension motions that any reduction in the current limit would be certain to trigger.

For quite understandable reasons, judges have become so familiar with trying to discern the intent of the drafter using the words of a provision and any formal legislative history that no one apparently realized that the answer to the mystery of “why 14,000 words?” could be obtained simply by asking the people involved in that process in the late 1990s. Most importantly, in my view, seven months have now passed since Judge Easterbrook posted his public comment on the rule change, and between then and now no one has come forth to cast any doubt on Judge Easterbrook’s first-hand explanation for why 14,000 words was selected as the limit.

Consequently, we now seem to have a rule amendment that experienced appellate advocates vociferously and overwhelmingly oppose whose lone justification appears invalid.

At least, in theory, there could be other possible justifications. Perhaps appellate judges believe that unnecessarily long, horribly written appellate briefs are causing them to work so hard that they can’t decide cases correctly. Yet no one has empirically or even anecdotally studied that possible justification, and unnecessarily short appellate briefs can also cause judges to work harder than an adequately reasoned and supported brief would necessitate.

If the word limit reduction is to be justified now by some new rationale, that rationale should be the subject of appropriate reflection and empirical study by the appellate rules advisory committee. If this proposed amendment simply isn’t scrapped, although in my view it should be, the amendment should at least be removed from the current package of rule changes and referred for additional study to potentially produce a new, valid justification for shrinking the maximum allowable word limit for federal appellate briefs.

It’s never easy to admit to making a mistake, but in this instance the appellate rules advisory committee appears to have done just that, which should mean — instead of digging-in further — either saying “never mind” or sending this amendment back to the drawing board for additional study.

“Bombings’ lasting effects described in penalty phase; Penalty phase begins in Marathon bombing trial”: Patricia Wen, Milton J. Valencia, Kevin Cullen, and Martin Finucane of The Boston Globe have this news update.

And online at Slate, Seth Stevenson has an essay titled “Tsarnaev’s Smirk: Has the Boston Marathon bomber shown enough remorse to escape the death sentence?”

“The Ferguson Effect: Chief Justice Roberts rules against police abuse at the Supreme Court; Maybe he finally gets it.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Federal judge clears way for Supreme Court to elect chief justice”: Patrick Marley of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has a news update that begins, “A federal judge cleared the way Tuesday for the state Supreme Court to elect a new chief justice, at least for the time being.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Judge declines to block chief justice selection change.”

“Argument preview: Regulation or confiscation?” Lyle Denniston of “SCOTUSblog” has this post today.

“Supreme Court Limits Drug-Sniffing Dog Use in Traffic Stops”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Police can’t extend traffic stop to wait for sniffing dogs, justices say.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today has an article headlined “Justices: Drug search that delays traffic stop is unconstitutional.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Curbs Drug-Sniffing Dogs During Traffic Stops; Justices continue on path of strengthening constitutional protections against ‘unreasonable search and seizure.'” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

And Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court says police can’t prolong traffic stops to allow for a dog sniff.”

“Same-sex marriage opponents urge Supreme Court to go slow”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Gay marriage controversy focuses on children.”

Cheryl Wetzstein of The Washington Times reports that “Gay marriage opponents, advocates to rally ahead of Supreme Court hearing.”

And online at The Huffington Post, law professor Douglas Kmiec has a blog entry titled “Hey Supreme Court, Get Out of the Marriage Cases.”

“Judge orders NY transit agency to run ‘Killing Jews’ ad”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report.

“Stephen Breyer’s New Book Will Confront Global Challenges”: Tony Mauro has this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.” You can freely access the full text of the post via Google News.

How one might attend a federal judicial rules committee’s meeting as a member of the general public to observe: Let’s say, hypothetically, that you are interested in a pending federal judicial rule change (perhaps you have possibly even written way more about it than anyone else, although thankfully plenty of other influential people agree with your position) and, through sheer happenstance, the advisory committee in charge of the proposed amendment will be holding a public meeting just a stone’s throw away from where you work and live to further consider the proposed amendment’s fate.

Fortunately, as noted here:

Committee meetings are open to the public, except when a committee — in open session and with a majority present — determines that it is in the public interest to have all or part of the meeting closed and states the reason.

Of course, knowing that the meeting will occur in Philadelphia, PA on a certain date provides a useful start, but Philadelphia is a big place. The Federal Register helps narrow it down from potentially anywhere within the fifth largest city in the United States to a single building located in that city. However, that building contains 26 floors and numerous meeting rooms, courtrooms, and offices.

The Federal Register also provides a contact phone number in Washington, DC. And the person who answers the phone at that number is more than happy to tell you where in the building in question the meeting will occur. After a few more phone calls in which the person who answered the phone will helpfully seek to correct the original location provided with the nearly correct actual location, you will receive the phone number of a person on the scene in the building in question located in Philadelphia who will not only provide the actual correct location of the meeting, but who will also offer to ensure that an extra seat is present in the room now that an observer is expected to attend. A day or so later the person in Washington, DC will call again to ask with whom you are affiliated, so that “the records” can reflect that. And either the helpful person in Washington, DC or the helpful person on location in Philadelphia will point out that if you arrive before the meeting’s already very early start time of 8:30 a.m., a continental breakfast will be provided, in which even a public observer is apparently welcome to partake.

And that’s at least one person’s version of how one might attend a federal judicial rules committee’s meeting as a member of the general public to observe.

“Court affirms dad’s rights in turkey baster conception”: Just when Thanksgiving’s the last thing on your mind, The Associated Press has this report.

You can access today’s ruling of the Court of Appeals of Virginia at this link.

“Inside the Connecticut Supreme Court”: You can view the video from this past Sunday’s broadcast of “Face the State” from Eyewitness News 3 in Hartford, Connecticut via this link.

“Too-Long Brief Dooms Banking Patent Appeal At Fed. Circ.” Kat Greene of Law360.com has an article (subscription required for full access) that begins, “A trick straight out of high school English class cost Pi-Net International Inc. its bid to save three patents in its suit against JPMorgan Chase & Co. over online banking applications when the Federal Circuit dismissed its appeal Monday because a brief was too long.”

According to yesterday’s order of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, “Appellants attempted in their first corrected brief to create ‘words’ by squeezing various words together and deleting the spaces that should appear between the words.”

Let this be a lesson to readers in the unlikely event that the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure are amended to reduce the maximum size of appellate briefs from 14,000 words to 12,500 words — you can’t defeat the word count limit by turning four words into.only.one.word.

The next step in the FRAP amendment process takes place in Philadelphia two days from today, and I will be attending that meeting of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure so that I can report first-hand to this blog’s readers on what transpires.

“High court limits drug-sniffing dog searches during traffic stops”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court curbs police drug-sniffing dogs in routine traffic stops.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Police Can’t Extend Stop for Dog Sniff, U.S. Supreme Court Says.”

Lori Pilger of The Lincoln Journal Star reports that “U.S. high court says police can’t extend stop for dog sniff in Nebraska case.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has a blog post titled “SCOTUS: Police can’t extend traffic stop for dog sniff.”

The Hill has a report headlined “Supreme Court: Cops can’t hold suspects to wait for drug-sniffing dog.”

Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “Supreme Court Limits Police Dog Sniffs After Traffic Stops.”

And Courhouse News Service reports that “High Court Divided on Delayed K-9 Search.”