“One Person, One Vote? The Supreme Court will consider whether equality of representation requires equal numbers of eligible voters, or equal numbers of people.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online today at The Atlantic.

“Justice for Jose? Border shooting of Mexican teen raises constitutional issue; In 2012 border patrol agent Lonnie Swartz shot and killed Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez but nearly three years later, a mother’s grief has turned to anger and the case revolves around what is the potential impunity for US agents.” Alan Yuhas of The Guardian (UK) has this report.

“GOP presidential hopefuls silent on major health care case before U.S. Supreme Court; Though a ruling is imminent on tax subsidies for people purchasing coverage, the Republicans who addressed the Oklahoma City conference last week didn’t talk about it; Some didn’t even mention the Affordable Care Act”: Chris Casteel of The Oklahoman has this report.

“Motorola’s Antitrust Lawsuit May Head to Top Court”: Steve Lohr will have this article in Monday’s edition of The New York Times.

“State postpones prison nuptials until after Supreme Court ruling”: In today’s edition of The Oklahoman, Jennifer Palmer has a front page article that begins, “The state Corrections Department has halted all weddings within prison walls until after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on whether same-sex couples are guaranteed the right to marry, The Oklahoman has learned.”

“The Demise of Habeas Corpus and the Rise of Qualified Immunity: The Court’s Ever Increasing Limitations on the Development and Enforcement of Constitutional Rights and Some Particularly Unfortunate Consequences.” Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt has this article in the May 2015 issue of the Michigan Law Review.

“Daniel J. Meltzer, 63; former Obama principal deputy counsel”: The Boston Globe has published an obituary that begins, “Each year when Harvard Law School students decided which professor’s section to seek for a course that goes by the shorthand name ‘federal courts,’ many chose Daniel J. Meltzer because of his reputation for running a demanding class.”

“Sen. Hilkemann’s death penalty journey”: This front page article appears in today’s edition of The Lincoln Journal Star.

And in related coverage, The Omaha World-Herald reports that “FDA says Nebraska can’t legally import execution drug.”

“Federal Judge to Quit Post; He Faced Abuse Charge”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains this article.

“Harvard honors Ginsburg for gender-equality advocacy”: This article appears in today’s edition of The Boston Globe.

“Cuellar’s Supreme Court debut upholds victim restitution”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this blog post.

You can access Thursday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of California at this link.

“Chief Justice ignites debate over Canada’s treatment of aboriginals”: Sean Fine of The Toronto Globe and Mail has an article that begins, “Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin’s assertion that Canada attempted ‘cultural genocide’ against aboriginal peoples is launching a debate on whether Canada has sugar-coated its history, failing to confront the magnitude of the harm it has done to aboriginals.”

“Pittsburgh diocese asks Supreme Court to hear contraception appeal”: Peter Smith of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a news update that begins, “Bishop David Zubik said Friday he’s hopeful the U.S. Supreme Court will agree to hear appeals by the dioceses of Pittsburgh and Erie on the contraception mandate in Obamacare.”

“Supreme Court to decide whether to plunge back into abortion debate”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

“9 states back Utah ruling tossing federal prairie dog rules”: The Associated Press has this report.

“U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller will resign”: Mary Troyan of The Montgomery Advertiser has this news update.

And Kyle Whitmire of AL.com reports that “Federal judge Mark Fuller resigns.”

“U.S. Judge Arrested on Domestic Abuse Charges Says He’ll Resign”: Alyson Palmer of The Daily Report of Fulton County, Georgia has a news update that begins, “U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller of Alabama, who was arrested on domestic abuse allegations in Atlanta last summer, on Friday announced his plans to resign.”

“Ginsburg urges young women to wage inspiring fights”: The Associated Press has this report.

And Harvard Magazine reports that “Ginsburg Discusses Justice and Advocacy at Radcliffe Day Celebration.”

Yesterday, the Harvard Gazette had an article headlined “Recognized as a force for change: Ginsburg to receive Radcliffe Medal.”

More information about today’s Radcliffe Day 2015 events can be accessed here.

“Cleveland man at heart of U.S. Supreme Court case charged with running prostitution ring from county jail”: The Cleveland Plain Dealer has this report.

Apparently being charged with hitting your girlfriend’s mother in the head with a pot had already been taken.

“Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh asking Supreme Court to hear case”: The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has a news update that begins, “Attorneys representing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh in its fight against the Affordable Care Act said they will petition the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday to hear the case.”

“Supreme Court justices spar over hiring of court director”: Patrick Marley of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this report.

“Idaho laws restricting abortions are unconstitutional: appeals court.” Dan Levine of Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

“Jury should decide whether FedEx drivers are employees — 11th Circuit”: Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued yesterday.

“Rosemond requires the government in a prosecution for aiding and abetting a violation of 18 U.S.C. sec. 2251(a) to prove the aider and abettor’s knowledge that the victim was a minor”: So holds the majority on a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in a ruling issued yesterday.

Because the decisive vote was supplied by a Tenth Circuit judge sitting by designation, this case likely has a better than average chance of attaining rehearing en banc if the federal government decides to request it.

“Appeals court stays out of Guantanamo force-feeding video case, for now”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau has this report on a per curiam ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

“Substantive Due Process as a Two-Way Street: How the Court Can Reconcile Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty.” Law professor Mark L. Rienzi has this essay at Stanford Law Review Online.

“The Death of the Death Penalty: Why the era of capital punishment is ending.” David Von Drehle has this cover story in the June 8, 2015 issue of Time magazine.

“God (Gazarov) proves his existence in Brooklyn court after Equifax threatens to deny him credit over divine name”: This article appears in today’s edition of The New York Daily News.

The New York Post reports that “Man named God settles lawsuit with credit agency.” In earlier coverage from April 2014, The Post published an article headlined “Man with first name ‘God’ runs into credit-rating issues.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Man with 1st name ‘God’ settles with credit rating agency.”

According to The New York Post, God plans to celebrate the settlement by purchasing a new BMW. As one might expect — notwithstanding many unanswered prayers — God himself has quite a good credit rating.

Eyewitness report from yesterday’s meeting of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure in Washington, DC: As I reported in this post yesterday afternoon, the so-called Standing Committee yesterday approved the FRAP briefing word limits reduction amendment.

“How Appealing” reader Valerie Nannery attended yesterday’s meeting, and she has kindly sent along this report:

The one federal appellate judge who voiced disagreement with the reduced length limits for briefs argued that they address a “non-problem,” and make a small change for little gain. The judge argued that the reduction in length limits would just increase the number of motions for expanded word limits, and thus would not save the circuit courts any time. The judge further argued that the amendments would create a lack of uniformity because several circuits, including the judge’s own court, will likely opt out of the amendments and retain the current page limits. Other members of the Standing Committee, and the chair of the Appellate Rules Advisory Committee, were not as concerned about the lack of uniformity. Despite the discussion of these arguments against the amended word limits, all of the other members of the Standing Committee approved the amendments to the length limits.

The amendments will be sent to the Judicial Conference for consideration at its meeting in September, where senior judges from every circuit will consider whether to approve the changes. These amendments, and specifically the amendments to Rule 32, are likely to be on the Judicial Conference’s discussion agenda. The discussion at the Standing Committee meeting demonstrated that judges in several circuits, including the Second, Seventh, and Ninth, have already discussed opting out of the amended rule, if it ultimately goes into effect in December 2016.

All of the other revised draft amendments to the Appellate Rules were unanimously approved, with some minor revisions made to the style of certain draft amendments, including the Appendix to the Appellate Rules, which lists the length limits for various pleadings in the federal circuit courts of appeal.

Later today, I will have a follow-up post quoting some of the comments that I received from federal appellate judges who responded to this blog’s recent survey asking whether they supported or opposed the FRAP briefing word limits reduction amendment and discussing additional conclusions that I believe one can fairly draw from the results of that survey.

“Justices toss Washington law countering bad-faith lawsuits; The Supreme Court has struck down Washington’s anti-SLAPP law that attempts to curtail lawsuits brought in bad faith to hinder public discussion”: The Associated Press has this report.

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has a post titled “Washington Supreme Court strikes down anti-SLAPP statute as violating the right to trial by jury.”

You can access today’s unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington at this link.

“Hawaii Military Carve Out May Play Role in Voting District Case”: Jess Bravin has this post today at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog.”

“Roberts at 10: The Strongest Free Speech Court in History?” David H. Gans has this report online today at the Constitutional Accountability Center.

“Justice Alito’s Son Quits Gibson Dunn for Capitol Hill Job; Philip Alito takes post as a counsel to Republicans on a Senate investigative subcommittee”: Tony Mauro had this post last night at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“U.S. judge grills lawyer defending Obama’s healthcare law changes”: Lindsay Dunsmuir of Reuters has this report.

The Associated Press reports that “Administration asks judge to toss House health care suit.”

And Dylan Scott of National Journal reports that “Judge Initially Skeptical of Plea to Dismiss House GOP’s Obamacare Lawsuit; The administration says the House doesn’t have standing to challenge how it implements the Affordable Care Act.”

The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure has approved the FRAP briefing word limit reduction amendment: Here’s an early report from a “How Appealing” reader who attended today’s meeting:

[T]he Standing Committee approved the amendments to the Appellate Rules that were included in the Agenda Book. Judge Graber abstained from the vote on the reduced brief length limits, voicing many of the arguments that were raised during the comment period.

With respect to this blog’s 25-hour survey of federal appellate judges to ascertain their degree of support for or opposition to the FRAP briefing word limit reduction amendment, let me begin by disclosing that the number of responses received was too small to be statistically significant. The total number of votes received do not include any votes from judges serving on the First, Second, and Tenth Circuits, because no judges serving on those courts responded to the survey.

Of the judges who emailed me in response to the survey after it appeared here yesterday at 11 a.m. eastern time, the votes opposing the brief word limit reduction amendment exceeded the votes supporting the word limit reduction amendment by a ratio of 2-to-1. Nevertheless, because the vast majority of federal appellate judges did not respond to the survey, it is not appropriate to extrapolate from the data available to me what the overall level of support among federal appellate judges for the FRAP briefing word limit reduction actually happens to be. Of course, I thank those federal appellate judges who took the time to respond to this survey.

Next up, the Judicial Conference of the United States will consider whether to approve the pending rule amendments.