“Menendez asks appeals court to throw out charges”: Jonathan Tamari of The Philadelphia Inquirer has this report.
NJ.com reports that “Menendez had right to question federal officials, brief says.”
And The Record of Hackensack, New Jersey reports that “Menendez lawyers challenge prosecutors’ right to question his motives.”
You can view the brief for appellant — containing 13,969 words, thus inexplicably leaving 31 words unused — filed Monday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at this link.
“My Right to Die: Assisted Suicide, My Family, and Me.” Kevin Drum has this cover story in the January/February 2016 issue of Mother Jones.
“Could One of These Cases Spell the End of the Death Penalty? Abolitionists seek the perfect case for a Supreme Court challenge.” Maurice Chammah has this news analysis online at The Marshall Project.
“Journalist fights 7-year sentence recommended in hacking case”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this report.
“Argument preview: The Indians vs. the settlers, a modern sequel.” Lyle Denniston has this post online today at “SCOTUSblog.”
“Will the U.S. Supreme Court Gut Public-Employee Unions? The justices consider a challenge to labor organizations without weighing the practical implications of their decision.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.
“Iran Case Tests Congress’s Power to Meddle in Court”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.
“Attorney Bar Status Program”: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit posted this notice to attorneys online today.
Programming note: This evening, I am heading back home, returning from my very enjoyable visit to Atlanta. Additional posts will appear here tonight.
“A Christmas Eve Appellate E-Filing ‘Miracle’ in Pa. Court”: Tuesday’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer — Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers — will contain this month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column.
You can freely access the full text of the column via Google News.
“US court: FBI physical fitness test not discriminatory.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court says an FBI physical fitness test that imposes different standards for male and female trainees doesn’t amount to illegal sex discrimination.”
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at this link.
“Wearing unearned medals is protected by 1st Amendment, appeals court rules”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this report.
Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has an article headlined “Court: Wearing unearned military medal is protected by Constitution.”
And The Associated Press has a report headlined “US court: Wearing unearned military medals is free speech.”
You can access today’s 8-to-3 en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.
“Supreme Court majority is critical of compelled public employee union fees”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court appears skeptical of union fees — a potentially major loss for labor groups.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Shows Signs of Ruling Against Mandatory Public-Sector Union Fees; Justices appear ready to end unions’ power to require nonmembers to pay dues.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court seems sure to rule against unions.”
Sam Hananel of The Associated Press reports that “High court seems ready to scrap mandatory public union fees.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Conservative U.S. justices prepared to deliver blow to unions.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Mandatory Union Fees Cast in Doubt at U.S. Supreme Court.”
On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Weighs Changes That Would Hurt Public Unions’ Bottom Lines.”
Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Conservative justices skeptical of union position in big labor case.”
Brian Mahoney and Josh Gerstein of Politico.com report that “SCOTUS signals support for anti-union plaintiffs.”
Tierney Sneed of TPM DC has an article headlined “Why Public Unions Should Be Afraid After Monday’s Supreme Court Arguments.”
Sam Baker of National Journal has an article headlined “At Supreme Court, Ominous Signs for Public-Sector Unions; The justices seemed likely to rule that certain union fees violate the First Amendment.”
Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post reports that “The Supreme Court Appears Set To Issue Crippling Blow To Public Employee Unions; The ruling would undo nearly 40 years of precedent in labor relations.”
Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “Supreme Court Appears Poised To End Public Sector Union Fee Requirements; A five-justice majority appears set to end ‘agency fees’ in public sector unions.”
At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument analysis: The question not asked.”
At the “School Law” blog of Education Week, Mark Walsh has a post titled “Teachers’ Unions Get Cold Reception at U.S. Supreme Court.”
Online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a jurisprudence essay titled “What Would Happen if the Court Kneecapped the Unions? We’re about to find out.”
And at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has a post titled “Public Sector Unions Just Got Brutalized In The Supreme Court.”
“After 14 months, Senate finally approves Phila. judge”: Jonathan Tamari of The Philadelphia Inquirer has an article that begins, “The Senate confirmed Philadelphia Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo to a federal appeals court seat on Monday, ending a 14-month delay that had become a flashpoint in a national fight over the judiciary.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Senate confirms Restrepo as other nominees languish.”
You can access at this link the U.S. Senate‘s official roll call vote tally confirming Luis Felipe Restrepo to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit by a vote of 82-to-6.
Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases.
“Supreme Court Seems Poised to Deal Unions a Major Setback”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.
And in today’s edition of that newspaper, Noam Scheiber has an article headlined “Supreme Court Case on Public Sector Union Fees Rouses Political Suspicions.”
You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Assn, No. 14-915.
I intend to link to additional news coverage of this oral argument tonight.
“Law on Ultrasounds Reignites Abortion Battle in North Carolina”: Richard Fausset has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.
“Lawyers who fought Nadon’s Supreme Court appointment ask for pay”: The Canadian Press has an article that begins, “The lawyers who challenged the Harper government’s ultimately aborted appointment of Justice Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada go before a court on Monday to argue they should be fully reimbursed for their efforts.”
“Federal judge dismisses nude protester’s claim that police violated his rights by arresting him”: Maxine Bernstein of The Oregonian has this report.
“Supreme Court weighs union fees for teachers: Is it a matter of free speech?” David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.
Jess Bravin and Melanie Trottman of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court to Weigh Public-Sector Union Dues; Plaintiffs say they oppose union goals that may benefit them, like higher pay; labor groups argue they need mandatory fees to do their work effectively.”
Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Why one California teacher took her union to the Supreme Court: In a potential watershed labor case, the Supreme Court is poised to weigh if mandatory ‘fair share’ union fees violate the First Amendment; The teacher at the center of the case speaks out.”
Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court weighs key challenge to California’s largest teachers union.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court set to hear challenge to public sector unions.”
And Brian Mahoney of Politico.com reports that “Conservative group nears big payoff in Supreme Court case; A case pitting teachers against their union could de-fund public employee unions.”
Greetings from freezing cold Atlanta, Georgia: Where tomorrow at noon I will speak to the Emory University School of Law’s Federalist Society student chapter on the subject of “The State of Free Speech on University Campuses and its Consequence for the Future.” Following my remarks, law professor Sasha Volokh will offer some of his own thoughts on the subject.
Later on Monday afternoon, I will be visiting with the faculty advisor for and several student participants in the Emory Law School Supreme Court Advocacy Program.
On Monday evening, I will have the pleasure of dining with several local appellate jurists in Atlanta, including this one, whom I have been looking forward to meeting in person for a very long time.
On Tuesday morning, I will be back at Emory Law as a guest co-teacher of that day’s advanced legal writing course on law blogging.
And my final event is lunch on Tuesday with Emory Law’s esteemed dean.
Because I am on the road now and will continue to be on the road for the next two days, new posts will appear here less frequently, but new appellate related retweets may appear on this blog’s Twitter feed a bit more frequently during that period.
“The average age of the Supreme Court is close to a record high”: Philip Bump has this post today at “The Fix” blog of The Washington Post.
“Fallout from Porngate leads to cases being appealed, claiming racial, gender, and ethnic bias”: In today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Jeremy Roebuck and Mark Fazlollah have a front page article that begins, “Mallissa Weaver knew she faced long odds when in 2008 she sought to convince the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that unrelenting sexual harassment by her former boss was so egregious that the justices should overturn a state law that barred her from suing for discrimination.”
“Battle over unions signals Supreme Court role at center of political debate”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report. In addition, columnist George F. Will has an essay titled “Will the Supreme Court undo the damage done to the rights of millions of government workers?”
Michael Doyle of McClatchyDC reports that “Public service unions face big challenge at Supreme Court.”
Jana Kasperkevic of The Guardian (UK) reports that “Unions brace for supreme court case that could be a heavy blow to liberals; Justices prepare to hear arguments in of case of California teacher and co-plaintiffs who say ‘tyranny’ of unions violates their rights through forced dues.”
Christina Beck of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Will the Supreme Court deal a blow to public-sector unions? In an upcoming Supreme Court case, California teacher Rebecca Friedrichs and nine others will challenge state ‘agency shop’ rules that compel non-members to financially support unions.”
Dave Jamieson and Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post have an article headlined “How The Supreme Court Could Crush Public-Sector Unions: Union membership has been falling for years; It may drop even more after this case.”
Tierney Sneed of TPM DC has an article headlined “Who Is Behind The Supreme Court Case That Could Cripple Public Unions?”
Alana Semuels of The Atlantic has an article headlined “Why Are Unions So Worried About an Upcoming Supreme Court Case? Justices are about to hear oral arguments for a case that could seriously impede labor’s fundraising abilities.”
Online at The New York Daily News, Rebecca Friedrichs has an essay titled “Union dues violate my speech rights: The lead plaintiff in a landmark Supreme Court case explains why she fights.”
Ian Millhiser of ThinkProgress has a post titled “Could Justice Scalia Save American Unions?”
And Sunday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an editorial titled “At the Supreme Court, a Big Threat to Unions.”
“Will Supreme Court tackle 1st Amendment issue in Madden NFL litigation? Expression in movies, plays, books, music, and video games hangs in the balance.” David Kravets of Ars Technica has this report today.
“Labor Pains: The Supreme Court takes up a case that could stanch the flow of funds to public sector unions.” This morning, Slate posted online this new installment of its “Amicus” podcast featuring Dahlia Lithwick.
“How the Supreme Court could affect the 2016 election”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com has this report.
And online at The Boston Globe, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has an essay titled “A make-or-break moment for Supreme Court appointments.”
“Monkey Has No Rights to Its Selfie, Federal Judge Says”: Mike McPhate of The New York Times has this report.
“Animal Rights Group Loses Copyright Suit Over Monkey Selfies”: This audio segment featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on yesterday’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”
“US Courts Administrative Office Sued Because PACER’s Bad Math Is Overcharging Users”: Tim Cushing has this post today at Techdirt.
“Vehicle Problems vs. Unusual Vehicles: The Supreme Court’s Bizarre Cert. Grant in Welch.” Steve Vladeck has this post today at “PrawfsBlawg.”
“The Absurd Logic Behind Florida’s Docs vs. Glocks Law: The Second Amendment trumps all other amendments.” Dahlia Lithwick and law professor Sonja West have this jurisprudence essay online today at Slate.
“Yet another misjudgment”: Today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer has an editorial that begins, “As Pennsylvania’s courts have relentlessly demonstrated, a judiciary populated by a partisan political process will behave accordingly. State Supreme Court Justice-without-portfolio J. Michael Eakin’s attempt to engineer last-minute lame-duck appointments provides only the latest troubling evidence thereof.”
“Texas attorney general has no business determining legality of daily fantasy sports”: James C. Ho has this essay online at The Dallas Morning News.
“Court will question its power to decide Puerto Rico case”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
