“Gov. Doug Ducey wants Arizona out of the 9th Circuit; Ducey mainly is focusing on the logistical problems related to the court’s massive caseload”: Dan Nowicki of The Arizona Republic has this report.
Today, the Office of the Arizona Governor Doug Ducey posted online a news release titled “Governor Doug Ducey, Arizona Congressional Leaders Call For Removal Of Arizona From The Ninth Circuit; Governor Teaming With Senator Jeff Flake, Congressman Matt Salmon On Solution To Long Postponed Issue.”
Whether the Ninth Circuit should be split-up was a recurring question that I asked of federal appellate judges in this blog’s now-discontinued “20 questions for the appellate judge” feature.
“House panel certifies Roush and Alston, setting up votes on Supreme Court seat”: Graham Moomaw has this front page article in today’s edition of The Richmond Times-Dispatch.
And Jenna Portnoy of The Washington Post reports that “Lawmakers quiz McAuliffe’s pick for the high court, but questions remain.”
“A Menendez Muddle?” Ross Guberman of Legal Writing Pro has this blog post.
“In a Supreme Court brief, lawyers bravely tell their own abortion stories”: Columnist Ruth Marcus has this essay online at The Washington Post.
What every oral argument panel needs — the “You’re not answering [my judicial colleague’s] question” judge: As reported in this post from yesterday, the Fourth Circuit yesterday heard oral argument in a legislative prayer case involving a North Carolina county.
Yesterday’s post links to the oral argument audio (35.6 MB mp3 audio file) and identifies the three judges on the panel. The oral argument audio reveals that Circuit Judge Dennis W. Shedd has a propensity to scold arguing counsel for not answering (or, perhaps more accurately, not directly answering) the questions of his judicial colleagues.
“The Constitutional Convention 2016? Some liberals and conservatives are teaming up in an effort to rewrite the Constitution.” Ashley Balcerzak has this essay online at Slate.
And online at The Huffington Post, Evan Bernick has a blog entry titled “Don’t Amend the Constitution, Enforce It.”
“Birth and Switch: Could Canada have a Ted Cruz problem?” Law professor Adam Dodek has this essay online at The Walrus.
Therein, Dodek writes, “I went to law school with Cruz. In a class of 560 Type-A overachievers, Cruz stood out as especially driven, incredibly ambitious, and rather arrogant.”
And online at Politico Magazine, Shane Goldmacher and Daniel Lippman have an article headlined “When Ted Cruz Wanted to Be Part of the Establishment: He climbed over colleagues in search of W’s favor, only to be rejected — setting him on his outsider’s course.”
Aha, so that’s why: Online at The New Yorker, law professor Lawrence Lessig yesterday had a post titled “Why I Ran For President.”
And today, he has a post titled “Why I Dropped Out.”
“Breyer Still Point Man for Death Penalty Abolition”: Lance J. Rogers of Bloomberg BNA has this report.
“Guess which circuit holds the fewest oral arguments. (Hint: it’s the same one that issues the fewest published opinions.)” Matthew Stiegler has this post today at — spoiler alert! — “CA3blog.”
“Long-delayed issues face state Supreme Court”: Peter Vaira has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer.
“Court: Arizona judicial candidates can’t seek campaign cash.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court has reversed course and now says Arizona can prohibit some candidates for elected judgeships from soliciting campaign contributions or participating in somebody else’s campaign.”
And Courthouse News Service reports that “Ariz. Limits on Campaigning Judges Upheld.”
You can access today’s ruling of an 11-judge en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.
“U.S. Appeals Court Allows Killing of Snowy Owls Near Kennedy Airport”: In today’s edition of The New York Times, Rick Rojas has an article that begins, “A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that airport officials had the authority to kill migratory birds that posed a threat to planes at Kennedy International Airport.”
The New York Daily News reports that “Appeals court denies animal rights group’s claim against Port Authority for killing snowy white owls at JFK Airport.”
The New York Post reports that “Port Authority gets OK to kill birds flying near airports.”
And Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that “Appeals court allows bird killings near NYC airports.”
You can access yesterday’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.
“Brandeis: The first Jewish jurist named to the Supreme Court.” Online at the Jewish Journal, Jonathan Kirsch has a report that begins, “Exactly 100 years have passed since the first Jewish jurist was named to the Supreme Court. Until the nomination of Louis Brandeis to the high court by President Woodrow Wilson on Jan. 28, 1916, all nine seats had always been occupied by white, Anglo-Saxon males, almost all of them Protestant.”
And online at The Forward, Jonathan Sarna has an essay titled “100 Years Later, Has Louis Brandeis’s Supreme Court Nomination Changed Anything?”
“Challengers warn of partisan politics in state high court race”: Bruce Vielmetti of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this report.
“States seek court delay in enforcement of Clean Power Plan”: The Associated Press has this report.
“Judge Vance Day should be ousted from job, in part for refusing to marry gays, commission says”: Aimee Green of The Oregonian has this report.
The Statesman Journal of Salem, Oregon reports that “Commission recommends removing Judge Vance Day.”
And Reuters has an article headlined “Oregon judge who refused to perform gay marriages should lose job: panel.”
You can view Monday’s opinion of the Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability at this link.
“Clinton ‘loves’ the idea of appointing Obama to Supreme Court”: Kelly Riddell of The Washington Times has this report.
And Gabriel Debenedetti of Politico.com reports that “Hillary Clinton thinks Obama on the Supreme Court is a ‘great idea.’”
“Texas urges Supreme Court to uphold abortion law”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.
This blog apparently needs more editorial policies: In its never-ending quest for journalistic purity, “SCOTUSblog” today has a post from Amy Howe titled “A new policy — just the facts, ma’am.” That post also notes that “SCOTUSblog” already has an overabundance of other policies. Indeed, one day the quest for journalistic purity may extend to excluding all cases in which its sponsoring law firm is involved from that blog’s “Petitions to Watch” feature instead of including all such cases, as is now somehow justified as representing the least conflict-inducing approach.
Sadly, the absence of editorial policies at “How Appealing” over this blog’s nearly 14-year lifespan means that some may question or comment on (see here and here) whether this blog is a journalistic endeavor.
And without policies, what is there to prevent me from linking to the Bashman Wikipedia entry, or a photograph of the Bashman Bayou near New Orleans, or Bashman news from Australia?
Thus, until this blog adopts some editorial policies, it will continue to remain proudly editorial policy-free since May 6, 2002.
In the February 2016 issue of The ABA Journal magazine: Mark Walsh has an article headlined “After his first decade, Alito is ‘every bit as conservative as conservatives could have dreamed.’”
Lorelei Laird has an article headlined “Can patent laws halt the reselling of used ink cartridges? Federal Circuit to consider.”
And Laird also has an article headlined “Meet the father of the landmark lawsuit that secured basic rights for immigrant minors.”
“D.C. Circuit Review — Reviewed: ‘The RICO Racket’ (Or More on the Divide Between Judges and Scholars).” At the the Yale Journal on Regulation, Aaron Nielson has a blog post that begins, “Here is a little known fact about Justice Samuel Alito: in 1989, he wrote a chapter for a book entitled The RICO Racket.”
“Abortion and capital punishment: The Supreme Court may have a smidgen of judicial modesty after all.” Steven Mazie has this post at the “Democracy in America” blog of The Economist.
“How Marsha Levick changed the face of juvenile justice”: In today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Samantha Melamed has an article that begins, “On Monday, more than 500 Pennsylvania inmates sentenced as juveniles to die in prison — 300 of them from Philadelphia — learned they’ll have a chance at release after all.”
“Prayer lawsuit attorneys argue in federal appeals court”: Josh Bergeron of The Salisbury (N.C.) Post has this report.
And The Associated Press reports that “Court weighs practice of Christian prayers at meetings.”
My friend Allyson Ho argued the appeal on behalf of the county, and Christopher Brook of the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina argued for the plaintiff-appellee.
You can access the audio of today’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, consisting of Circuit Judges J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Dennis W. Shedd, and G. Steven Agee, in Lund v. Rowan County, N.C. via this link (35.6 MB mp3 audio file).
“4th Circuit hears arguments in Gloucester transgender student discrimination case”: Louis Llovio of The Richmond Times-Dispatch has this report.
Frances Hubbard of The Daily Press of Newport News, Virginia has an article headlined “Body or mind: Appeals court judges question what defines gender in Gloucester lawsuit.” You can freely access the full text of this article via Google.
The Associated Press reports that “Attorney urges court to rule in transgender student’s favor.”
And Reuters reports that “U.S. court hears arguments on transgender student using boys’ bathroom.”
You can access the audio of today’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, consisting of Circuit Judges Paul V. Niemeyer and Henry F. Floyd and Senior Circuit Judge Andre M. Davis, in G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board via this link (28.2 MB mp3 audio file).
Programming note: I made it back home tonight from the 2016 AJEI Summit planning meeting in Dallas.
On Wednesday, I will be presenting an appellate oral argument on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellees in this case to a three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Blogging should return to normal by Wednesday night.
Update: Wednesday’s oral argument went very well. Early coverage is available from The Legal Intelligencer (subscription required for full access) and Law360.com (ditto).
“A ‘view’ from the courtroom: No snow day here.” Mark Walsh had this post yesterday at “SCOTUSblog.”
Greetings from Dallas, Texas: My flight this morning from snowy Philadelphia was delayed just long enough to cause me to miss my connecting flight from Atlanta to Dallas Love Field. Fortunately, Delta re-booked me on the very next flight, allowing me to arrive just in time for this evening’s 2016 AJEI Summit planning meeting.
On Tuesday afternoon into Tuesday night, I will be traveling home to Philadelphia. On Wednesday morning, I have a Pa. Superior Court oral argument. As a result, blogging will be on a limited schedule through Wednesday afternoon.
Programming note: I will be traveling to Dallas, Texas during the day on Monday, to attend a planning session on Monday evening for the 2016 AJEI Summit, which will be occurring in November 2016 in my hometown of Philadelphia.
On Tuesday morning, I will be at the at the SMU Dedman School of Law in Dallas for a continuation of the AJEI Summit planning session.
On Wednesday morning, following my return home late Tuesday night, I will be presenting an appellate oral argument on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellees in this case to a three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
As a result, new posts will not appear here until Monday afternoon or evening. On Tuesday, appellate-related updates are likely to appear only at this blog’s Twitter feed. And on Wednesday, new posts are unlikely to appear until late in the afternoon, although appellate-related retweets may appear at this blog’s Twitter feed throughout the day. If you don’t already follow “How Appealing” on Twitter, you can do so via this link.
“Family’s fight over vacation land goes to U.S. Supreme Court”: Bruce Vielmetti of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has an article that begins, “Wisconsin is full of stories about cabin owners at odds with shoreland conservation and development rules. But only one has made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. Earlier this month, the justices agreed to hear the Murr family’s claim that St. Croix County effectively took its property without compensation.”
“Superior Court throws out some charges against former PSU administrators”: Paula Reed Ward of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has an article that begins, “The state Superior Court on Friday dismissed several criminal counts against three former Penn State administrators charged as part of the Jerry Sandusky sex assault case, finding that they were not properly represented by the university’s general counsel during their own grand jury testimony.”
You can access here, here, and here the three rulings that the Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued on Friday.
“Efforts to repeal Kansas death penalty may be stymied by U.S. Supreme Court’s decision”: The Lawrence Journal-World has this report.
“Pa. Justices To Rehear More Than 25 Cases From 2015”: Matt Fair of Law360.com has an article (subscription required for full access) that begins, “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has hit the reset button on nearly 30 cases left undecided at the end of 2015 in order to work around the suspension of Justice J. Michael Eakin and to allow input from three new justices who took the bench earlier this month.”
abc27.com News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has a report headlined “Supreme Court’s Eakin: ‘I should not have been suspended.’”
In today’s edition of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Brad Bumsted has an article headlined “Pornocopia insanity in Harrisburg.”
Wallace McKelvey of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania reports that “Justice Eakin’s trial for offensive emails could bring scrutiny for other judges.”
Angela Couloumbis of The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “Judicial panel zeroes in on review of Eakin’s emails.” The newspaper also published an editorial titled “Crisis of credibility.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Eakin looks to limit emails being considered in ethics case.”
“In Nine Trips to Supreme Court, Ted Cruz Saw Mixed Results”: Aman Batheja of The Texas Tribune has this report.
