“Court: FAA can allow cellphones during takeoff and landing.” 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.

“Court tosses Rep. Rangel’s bid to overturn censure”: Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times has this news update.

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Court dismisses Congressman Rangel’s challenge to his House censure.”

And Sam Hananel of The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court rejects Rangel’s bid to overturn censure.”

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

“More on yesterday’s claim-forfeiture opinion in light of How Appealing’s post”: Matthew Stiegler has this post today at his “CA3blog” discussing my lengthy post of last night about a Third Circuit ruling issued yesterday.

And a federal prosecutor who practices in one of the states within the Third Circuit emails that “we routinely confront defendants who appeal their convictions and raise legal sufficiency challenges (or other claims that require the entire transcript to evaluate fairly (including harmless error)) but include only brief excerpts of the trial transcript in their Appendix (even if they’ve ordered all the transcripts).” As a result, according to my correspondent, the government frequently must “seek an extension of time, order any missing transcripts, and include them in a Supplemental Appendix (at Government expense).” Whether yesterday’s Third Circuit ruling in a civil case will now compel the dismissal of such claims of error in direct federal criminal appeals remains to be seen, but logically that should be the result, because FRAP 10 applies identically in civil and criminal appeals.

All of this, at least in my view, provides further support for my implicit suggestion in my post from last night that either the panel or the full Third Circuit sitting en banc might want to reconsider yesterday’s ruling, especially if its effect might be to force more issues that could have been resolved on direct appeal in a criminal case into federal habeas review due to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. I will probably have more to say about this decision in next Tuesday’s installment of my “Upon further Review” column published in The Legal Intelligencer.

“Plebiscite Lawsuits sent back to District Court of Guam”: Kuam News of Guam has this report on a ruling that Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski issued today on behalf of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Circuit Judge N.R. Smith issued a dissenting opinion, concluding that the matter was unripe for adjudication.

Programming note: After what promises to be a busy day today in Atlanta, I will be heading home this evening. As a result, additional posts will not appear here until tonight. In the interim, some appellate-related retweets are likely to appear on this blogs Twitter feed.

“Racial slur can create hostile work environment, 4th Circuit rules”: Reuters has a report that begins, “A U.S. appeals court Thursday revived a discrimination suit against a Maryland hotel by a black former waitress who says a coworker called her a ‘porch monkey,’ overruling a prior decision that said a single incident could not create a hostile work environment.”

You can access today’s en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at this link.

The appellant’s FRAP 10 violation, in failing to include a transcript “necessary to evaluate” appellant’s principal claim, forfeits that claim on appeal even if the appellee has provided the court with the missing transcript as an attachment to its brief: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit today issued a ruling that some (myself included) might view as harsh.

In a footnote, the appellate court notes that it probably would have reached the same outcome even if the appellant had provided the necessary transcript, whose existence the appellant claims not to have been aware of (although the Third Circuit questioned the credibility of this assertion). Nevertheless, because the panel’s actual holding is that the appellant’s failure to provide the transcript forfeited the issue, in a subsequent case this holding could operate to the detriment of a party that in fact truly was unaware of the existence of the transcript.

It is no doubt ironic that the reason the three-judge panel knew that the appellant’s assertion that no transcript existed was false was because the appellee provided the transcript together with the appellee’s appellate brief. Thus, by the time the panel was considering the merits of the appeal, the transcript wasn’t missing from the record. It seems to elevate form over substance, and to constitute a particularly harsh sanction, to hold an issue waived when whatever error or scheme that the appellant was trying to perpetrate did not disadvantage the panel. Instead of deeming the issue forfeited, the panel could have simply ordered the appellant to reimburse the appellee for the costs of obtaining and providing the transcript to the court. And the panel could have imposed far more substantial sanctions if the panel believed that any effort to deceive the panel was intentional.

Even more surprising, perhaps, is that the three-judge panel apparently did not select this appeal for oral argument. Had the case been chosen for oral argument, presumably the panel could have further explored the issue of appellant’s perceived wrongdoing and delivered in-person a message that likely would not be forgotten for quite some time, if ever. Instead, the panel opted to announce a harsh forfeiture rule that may apply in cases where an appellant is truly ignorant of a transcript’s availability, even if that ignorance did not disadvantage the panel in any way because the transcript was provided to the court before the case was considered on the merits.

In the past, the Third Circuit had been hesitant to impose significant sanctions for relatively minor transgressions. Today’s ruling, from three of that court’s newer judges, may indicate that the Third Circuit’s previous forgiving approach toward errors affecting form but not substance has come to an end.

“California Supreme Court revives generic Cipro lawsuit”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has an article that begins, “The California Supreme Court on Thursday revived a class-action lawsuit that accuses Bayer AG of paying another drug company to delay introducing a generic version of a Bayer antibiotic.”

The Associated Press reports that “California court sides with consumers in generic drug fight.”

And Reuters reports that “Top California court revives Cipro antitrust case.”

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

“Free speech and judges: Keeping up appearances.” At the “Democracy in America” blog of The Economist, Steven Mazie has a post that begins, “Chief Justice John Roberts did something last week that he hasn’t done in three years: side with the liberal justices against his conservative friends on the Supreme Court.”

“The Destruction of the Wisconsin Supreme Court”: Lincoln Caplan has this post online at The New Yorker.

“Kentucky prohibits electioneering with 100 feet of polls after court strikes down 300-foot ban”: The Lexington Herald-Leader has this report.

Thanks to everyone who made my serving as the moderator of the “Reporting on the Courts” panel at the Fifth Circuit‘s Judicial Conference so much fun: Although the conference in New Orleans wrapped-up yesterday (concluding with a superstar panel — consisting of Paul D. Clement, Miguel A. Estrada, and Maureen E. Mahoney — discussing the art of handling cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court), I am still making my way back home, currently in the midst of a stop-over until tomorrow in Atlanta, where my son is wrapping-up his second year of college.

I had a wonderful time visiting with so many judges and other attendees at the conference. This is not the place for me to name-drop, but you know who you are. I hope that we will keep in touch and see each other again soon. A special thanks to Fifth Circuit Judge Stephen A. Higginson, who invited me to serve as moderator of my panel (further details on my panel can be accessed via the final paragraph of this earlier post) and who himself served as moderator of the excellent SCOTUS practitioners’ panel detailed above.

Finally, thanks to all of those who acknowledged this blog’s thirteenth birthday yesterday. I have collected as many of those tributes as I could at this blog’s Twitter feed (scroll down).

“Sea Shepherd tries novel tack in appeal of piracy ruling”: Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire has an article that begins, “The anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd has asked the Supreme Court to weigh a federal appeals court decision that characterized the activists’ campaign on the open seas against whale-killing Japanese researchers as piracy.”

You can view the organization’s cert. petition at this link.

“Massachusetts seeks to uphold ban on lying in political ads”: Reuters has a report that begins, “The state of Massachusetts on Thursday defended a 1946 law making it illegal to tell lies about candidates for office, after a woman facing possible jail time for a mailer about a Cape Cod candidate challenged the measure’s constitutionality.”

And in pre-argument coverage, today’s edition of The Boston Globe contains an article headlined “Mass. AG will defend law against lies in campaign material.”

You can access the briefs filed in the case via this link. And archived video of today’s oral argument should be available online via this link within the next week or so.

“Court Backs Snowden, Strikes Secret Laws”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Orin Kerr has a post titled “Second Circuit rules, mostly symbolically, that current text of Section 215 doesn’t authorize bulk surveillance.”

“The Management of Staff by Federal Court of Appeals Judges”: Law professor G. Mitu Gulati and Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner have posted this article online at SSRN.

The article’s abstract begins, “Federal court of appeals judges have staffs consisting usually of a secretary and four law clerks.” According to the abstract, the article “is based on interviews, some in person, most by telephone, of more than 70 judges, chosen mainly at random and covering almost all of the thirteen federal courts of appeals.”

“Appeals court upholds Pandora’s victory over songwriters; ASCAP says 1.85% royalty isn’t enough; 2nd Circuit feels otherwise”: Joe Mullin of Ars Technica has this report today.

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

“Convicted terrorist Omar Khadr granted bail”: Sean Fine and Mike Hager of The Toronto Globe and Mail have this news update. Yesterday, they had an article headlined “Psychological assessment gives glimpse into Omar Khadr’s inner life.”

And The Edmonton Journal has a news update headlined “Omar Khadr to be freed on bail.”

“Appeals court rules NSA phone dragnet is illegal”: The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

David Kravets of Ars Technica reports that “NSA phone dragnet is illegal, appeals court rules; The snooping program ‘exceeds the scope of what Congress has authorized.’”

Josh Gerstein of Politico.com reports that “Appeals court rules that NSA phone surveillance program is illegal; The judges didn’t address whether the program violated the Constitution.”

And at “Just Security,” Marty Lederman has a post titled “Second Circuit rules that Section 215 does not authorize telephony bulk collection program,” while Steve Vladeck has a post titled “The Second Circuit and the Politics of Surveillance Reform.”

My earlier coverage of today’s Second Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Kennedy at the Rubicon on Marriage”: Kenneth Jost had this post Sunday at his blog, “Jost on Justice.”

“Confirmation vote on Pennsylvania jurist awaits ‘blue slip’ from Toomey”: Tracie Mauriello has this article in today’s edition of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

“N.S.A. Phone Data Collection Illegal, Appeals Court Rules”: Charlie Savage of The New York Times has a news update that begins, “A federal appeals court in New York on Thursday ruled that the once-secret National Security Agency program that is systematically collecting Americans’ phone records in bulk is illegal.”

Ellen Nakashima of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “NSA program on phone records is illegal, court says.”

Brad Heath and Richard Wolf of USA Today report that “Appeals court strikes down government’s phone surveillance program.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau has a report headlined “Appeals court: NSA’s bulk collection of phone data illegal.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times has a report headlined “NSA phone record collection is excessive: U.S. appeals court.”

Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that “U.S. NSA domestic phone spying program illegal: appeals court.”

The Associated Press has a report headlined “US appeals court: NSA phone record collection is excessive.”

And Bob Van Voris of Bloomberg News reports that “NSA’s Bulk Collection of Telephone Data Is Ruled Illegal; The court declines to rule on whether the practice violates the U.S Constitution.”

Circuit Judge Gerard E. Lynch wrote today’s ruling on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The panel consisted of Judge Lynch, Senior Circuit Judge Robert D. Sack (who joined the opinion of the court in full and also issued a concurring opinion), and U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick (S.D.N.Y.). Judges Lynch and Broderick were appointed to their current seats by President Obama, while President Clinton appointed Judge Sack.

“Appeals Court Rules in Pandora’s Favor in Royalty Rate Fight”: Eriq Gardner has this post today at the “Hollywood, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter.

And The Associated Press reports that “Pandora wins appeal against songwriters society ASCAP.”

You can access today’s per curiam ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

“Pharmaceutical firm wants lethal injection drugs returned”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Tennessee justices debate notification in electric chair case”: Stacey Barchenger of The Tennessean has a news update that begins, “What one Tennessee Supreme Court justice called a ‘big hole’ in state protocol regarding when death-row inmates are told they will be executed in the electric chair was a key issue before the state’s highest court Wednesday.”

“Judicature Returns with Ninth Circuit Connection”: The Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today issued a news release that begins, “Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit are helping to restore the venerable Judicature magazine to its rightful place among the nation’s foremost legal publications.”

“From Chief Justice Roberts, a liberal dose of independence”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

Today “How Appealing” turns 13 years old: As this blog’s archives will confirm, the very first “How Appealing” post appeared on May 6, 2002. Thanks to all of this blog’s readers and sources for continuing to make operating this blog so much fun.

For those who might like to be notified of new posts via Twitter, you can do so by following this blog’s Twitter feed. Especially on a day like today — when I will be traveling to Atlanta from the Fifth Circuit‘s Judicial Conference in New Orleans — links to items of interest to this blog’s readers are likely to appear on this blog’s Twitter feed long before they appear on this page.

“Court rejects royalties for artists in out-of-state sales”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update headlined “California artists not entitled to royalty on out-of-state sales.”

Courthouse News Service reports that “CA Resale Royalties Law Reined In by 9th Circuit.”

And at the “Hollywood, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has a post titled “Will High-Priced Art Ever Be Auctioned Again in California?”

You can access today’s en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“John Paul Stevens says some Guantanamo Bay detainees should be given reparations”: Mark Berman of The Washington Post has this report today.

“Omar Khadr bail decision delayed”: The Edmonton Journal has this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Canadian judge delays bail decision for ex-Gitmo inmate.”

“Pat Toomey Is Blocking His Own Judicial Nominee, For Some Reason”: Jennifer Bendery of The Huffington Post has this report today about Third Circuit nominee Luis Restrepo, who now serves as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

“Conservative Nebraska looks at abolishing death penalty”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “There’s not a lot of sympathy for the 11 men on death row in Nebraska, but spurred by frustration about the growing difficulty and cost of carrying out executions, lawmakers are considering eliminating the death penalty.”

“Court: warrantless cellphone tracking not illegal search.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Investigators do not need a search warrant to obtain cellphone tower location records in criminal prosecutions, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in a closely-watched case involving the rules for changing technology.”

News Service of Florida reports that “Court backs use of cell records to track suspect.”

At “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Orin Kerr has a post titled “Eleventh Circuit rules for the feds on cell-site records — but then overreaches.”

And at “The Southern District of Florida” blog, Brian Toth has this guest post about the decision.

You can access today’s en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit at this link.

“States respond to US appeal in immigration lawsuit”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “States fighting President Barack Obama’s plan to spare millions of immigrants from deportation say they agree with a Texas judge who has temporarily blocked the president’s action.”

Via this post at “Josh Blackman’s Blog,” you can access the Brief for Appellees.