Programming note: Because I will be in court presenting an appellate oral argument on Wednesday (as detailed at the outset of this post from earlier today), additional entries will appear here on Wednesday afternoon.
In the interim, new appellate-related retweets are likely to appear on this blog’s Twitter feed.
Update: Wednesday’s Pa. Superior Court oral argument went very well. And midday Wednesday eastern time, the Ninth Circuit announced that the case that I was planning to travel to Pasadena to argue next Thursday will now instead be decided on the briefs without oral argument, thus saving me from two rather hectic full days of travel sandwiched around the day of oral argument and approximately 15 minutes on YouTube.
“Fox News’ Legal War Over Sharing of TV Clips Headed to Appeals Court; The cable news network agrees to delay an injunction in favor of a bid to expand the scope of a judge’s order”: Eriq Gardner has this post today at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter.
“Judge Posner to Speech-Squelching Sheriff: Cease and Desist.” Evan Bernick has this blog entry today at The Huffington Post.
“Supreme Court Says Woman Injured in Austria Can’t Sue in U.S.” Adam Liptak will have this article in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rules against Berkeley woman suing over injury in Austria.”
Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “High Court Rules Woman in Austrian Train Accident Can’t Sue in U.S.; California woman lost her legs in 2007 incident.”
Jerry Markon of The Washington Post reports that “Woman hurt at Austrian train station can’t sue in U.S., Supreme Court rules.”
And Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post has a report headlined “The Supreme Court Is 100 Percent Unanimous; That Won’t Last Long; But for one brief shining moment, the justices all agreed on something.”
“Students’ Protests May Play Role in Supreme Court Case on Race in Admissions”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.
“Naked Shorts at the Supreme Court”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.
You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning, No. 14-1132.
“Appeals Court Hears Arguments Over bin Laden Assistant’s Conspiracy Conviction; Judges to weigh whether Guantanamo detainee’s military-commission verdict should stand”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.
“High court grants Texas a few more days in immigration case”: The Associated Press has this report.
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “States get a bit more time for immigration reply.”
Upcoming oral arguments, speaking events, and blog-related travel: On Wednesday, I will be delivering an appellate oral argument before a three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in a case that I alluded to in this earlier post.
On Thursday afternoon, I will be at the Newseum in Washington, DC — together with him, him, and her (and various others whose identities will remain a secret to me until I arrive) — to participate in what will be my second “Justice and Journalism” program.
On Thursday, December 10, 2015, I will be in Pasadena, California to present oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a case in which I will be entering my appearance tomorrow afternoon.
On January 11 and 12, 2016, I will be at the Emory School of Law in Atlanta, Georgia to speak at a Federalist Society gathering and also to take part in a few other things.
Two weeks later, on January 25 and 26, 2016, I will be in Dallas for planning meetings pertaining to an appellate-related event that will occur in Philadelphia in November 2016. On Tuesday morning, the planning meetings I’ll be attending will be taking place at the SMU Dedman School of Law, my first visit to that law school.
Also on the agenda, but yet to be scheduled, is a visit to give a talk and/or participate in an event at the University of California, Irvine School of Law and possibly serving as a speaker or panelist at a couple of federal appellate court judicial conferences sometime in the next year or two.
As always, while I am away from home or office, the volume of blog posts may decrease but the volume of appellate-related retweets at this blog’s Twitter feed will increase. Thus, readers of this blog who do not yet follow “How Appealing” on Twitter may wish to do so.
“Supreme Court Landmark Case Mapp v. Ohio“: C-SPAN has posted the video of last night’s broadcast, featuring professor Carolyn Long and law professor Renee Hutchins, at this link.
“Kane’s ‘Porngate’ prosecutor has baggage of his own”: Dennis Roddy has this op-ed online at The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
“Pennsylvania AG Kathleen Kane appoints ‘Porngate’ prosecutors led by Doug Gansler”: Michael Dresser of The Baltimore Sun has a news update that begins, “Former Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler has been appointed as a special prosecutor in charge of investigating charges that judges and other officials in Pennsylvania exchanged pornographic emails on government computers.”
Angela Couloumbis and Craig R. McCoy of The Philadelphia Inquirer have a news update headlined “In ‘Porngate,’ Kane appoints special prosecutor.”
Wallace McKelvey of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania reports that “Kathleen Kane appoints ‘Porngate’ prosecutors led by former Md. attorney general.”
Karen Langley of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a news update headlined “Kane turns to former Maryland AG to lead porn email probe.”
Brad Bumsted of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has a news update headlined “Kane turns to former Maryland attorney general to lead porn email probe.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Kane names ex-Maryland AG Gansler to lead investigation into government pornography email scandal.”
“Court finds cross memorial constitutional”: This article appears in today’s edition of The Baltimore Sun reporting on a ruling that the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued yesterday.
“9th Circuit says L.A. broke the law when it cut housing subsidies for the poor”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.
Seventh Circuit panel tepidly upholds Illinois prison’s ban on access to pornographic magazines: Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner issued today’s ruling on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
“US appeals court reconsiders decision on ex-bin Laden aide”: The Associated Press has this report.
And at “Just Security,” Marty Lederman has a post titled “Reflections from the en banc al Bahlul oral argument.”
You can access via this link (54.0 MB mp3 audio file) the audio of today’s en banc rehearing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Update: Also at “Just Security,” Steve Vladeck has a post titled “Counting to Six in Al Bahlul IV.”
“How Long Must an Employee Endure Discrimination? Chief Justice John Roberts is a surprise working-class hero.” Mark Joseph Stern has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.
You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Green v. Brennan, No. 14-613.
“Affirmative action on trial: The Supreme Court dives into a dispute over what diversity means.” Steven Mazie has this post at the “Democracy in America” blog of The Economist.
“An Update On The Federal Judge And ‘His’ Twitter Account”: David Lat had this post yesterday at “Above the Law.”
“Dzhokhar Tsarnaev case back in US District Court today”: Milton J. Valencia of The Boston Globe has this report.
And Reuters reports that “Lawyers for Boston Marathon bomber to argue for new trial.”
Access today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in an argued case: Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, No. 13-1067. You can access the oral argument via this link.
In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Justices end Californian’s lawsuit against Austrian railway.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court says woman can’t sue over Austria rail injury.”
And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Austrian Railway Shielded by U.S. High Court on Rider Suit.”
“IUD use attracts new opposition from anti-abortion groups”: Reuters has this report. According to the article, “The next battle will be at the U.S. Supreme Court, which has agreed to consider a new religious challenge to contraceptives coverage under President Barack Obama’s healthcare law.”
“Appeals court considers how to prosecute Guantanamo detainees”: Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court Tuesday will reconsider a case involving the reach of military commissions and the validity of the prosecution of a former media secretary to Osama bin Laden.”
“Supreme Court Faces Decisions On Where To Go Next With The Death Penalty”: Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News has this report.
“Executions, Jewish Law and the Old College Try”: Mark Graber had this post yesterday at “Balkinization.”
“Argument preview: How to measure ‘one person, one vote.'” Lyle Denniston has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”
