“Contraception compromise acceptable if it ends legal challenges, administration says”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.
Louise Radnofsky and Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal report that “Religious Groups, Obama Administration Respond to Supreme Court Request for Contraception Compromise; Christian groups suggest contraception insurance independent from employers; government defends current arrangement under Affordable Care Act.”
Tom Howell Jr. of The Washington Times reports that “Obama rejects Supreme Court’s contraception trade-off; Under compromise, insurers would pay, not religious nonprofits.”
Peter Smith of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that “U.S., religious charities spar over Obamacare birth control plan.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court’s Birth-Control Compromise Gets Mixed Reaction.”
Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Obama administration, religious non-profits open to contraceptive mandate compromise.”
At the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center, Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Has the Supreme Court brokered a workable deal on birth-control?”
Online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Compromise Is a Losing Battle for the Supreme Court.”
At “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has a post titled “More from Michael McConnell on the supplementary briefing in ‘Zubik v. Burwell.’”
At National Review’s “Bench Memos” blog, Ed Whelan has a post titled “Obama DOJ Evades Supreme Court’s Question in Little Sisters.”
Josh Blackman has a blog post titled “Analysis of Supplemental Briefing in Zubik v. Burwell.”
At the “Democracy in America” blog of The Economist, Steven Mazie has a post titled “Losing their religion: New briefs further complicate Supreme Court contraception battle.”
And at the “Bill of Health” blog, Greg Lipper has a post titled “The Zubik Supplemental Briefs: The Objectors Push for Second-Class Coverage, With a Smile.”
“Oklahoma Officials Told Of Execution Drug Mix-Up Months Earlier Than Previously Known; The Department of Corrections had reason to know it used the wrong drug in one execution in 2015 well before it obtained — and almost used — the same wrong drug for another execution later that same year”: Chris McDaniel of BuzzFeed News has this report.
“Flag case: Confederate emblem ‘anti-American,’ judge says.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal judge said Tuesday that the Confederate emblem on the Mississippi flag is ‘anti-American’ because it represents those who fought to leave the United States.”
“Christie ends 6-year battle by nominating Democrat to N.J. Supreme Court”: NJ.com has this report.
And at National Review’s “Bench Memos” blog, Carrie Severino has a post titled “A Very Christie Justice: Yet Another Liberal on the New Jersey Supreme Court.”
Access online the contents of the April 2016 issue of the Harvard Law Review: Via this link. The recent cases essays this month include Garcia v. Google and the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s Ten Commandments monument ruling.
“What It’s Like to Have Ted Cruz as a Law Professor; ‘I was struck by the strong sense that he would run for political office'”: Marissa Miller has this post online today at Cosmopolitan magazine, courtesy of Jason Steed.
Programming note: As part of Freedom Day 2016 today at the National Constitution Center, this afternoon at 2 p.m. eastern time I will be serving as a “virtual” U.S. Supreme Court justice as part of the final round of the ConSource-Harlan Institute oral arguments. I believe that I have been designated the third most senior justice on the Court, meaning that I will be playing the role of Justice Clarence Thomas at oral argument.
You can view the today’s events at the National Constitution Center — which begin at 2 p.m. eastern time and run into the evening — live, online via this link.
Additional posts will appear here this evening.
“Even Teen Murderers Can Change”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.
“Your help is needed for Thurgood Marshall biopic”: This article appears in today’s edition of The Buffalo News.
And The Associated Press reports that “Thurgood Marshall movie to be filmed in Buffalo.”
“Court ruling opens way for those without ID to vote”: In today’s edition of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Patrick Marley and Jason Stein have a front page article that begins, “A panel of three federal judges opened up the possibility Tuesday that Wisconsin voters who have great difficulty getting photo IDs could cast ballots without them.”
In today’s edition of The Wisconsin State Journal, Mark Sommerhauser and Molly Beck have a front page article headlined “Appeals court ruling could allow those who can’t get IDs to vote anyway.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Court sends part of Wisconsin voter ID case back to judge.”
Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook issued yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel.
“Appeals court hears challenge to constitutionality of Minnesota Sex Offender Program; Minnesota alleges bias by U.S. district court judge, seeks reversal of his ruling”: Chris Serres of The Minneapolis Star Tribune has this report.
And The Associated Press reports that “Federal court hears appeal of Minnesota sex offender ruling.”
You can access the audio of today’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit via this link (18.9 MB mp3 audio file).
“Dueling responses to the Court’s ACA birth-control idea”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
“Religious non-profits fully endorse Court’s birth-control access idea”: Lyle Denniston of “SCOTUSblog” has this post about the petitioners’ supplemental brief filed this evening in the U.S. Supreme Court.
“U.S. would accept modest change on birth-control mandate — warily”: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has this post about the federal government’s supplemental brief filed this evening in the U.S. Supreme Court in Zubik v. Burwell.
“Pfizer must face revived Celebrex, Bextra safety lawsuit”: Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.
Gregory P Joseph argued the appeal for plaintiffs-appellants, and Miguel A. Estrada argued the appeal for defendants-appellees.
“Argument preview: A big, or not so big, ruling due on immigration.” Lyle Denniston had this post yesterday at “SCOTUSblog.”
“Even Conservatives Agree on Obama’s Immigration Powers. Will the Supreme Court?” Simon Lazarus has this essay online today at The New Republic.
And at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has a post titled “Everything You Need To Know About The Supreme Court Challenge To Obama’s Immigration Policies.”
“Constitution Check: Could Obama bypass the Senate on Garland nomination?” Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.
“After Scalia: The Future of United States Election Law.” Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has posted this paper online at SSRN.
“Appeals court allows suit over 2011 State Police shooting in Glorieta to continue”: The Associated Press had this report back in February 2016.
Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued an order denying rehearing en banc, accompanied by a concurrence and two dissents, by an evenly divided vote.
“Appeals court rules against ‘Sister Wives’ in Utah polygamy law case”: Dennis Romboy of The Deseret News has this report.
In today’s edition of The Salt Lake Tribune, Jennifer Dobner has a front page article headlined “Appeals court strikes down ruling that decriminalized polygamy in Utah.”
The Associated Press reports that “Court upholds Utah’s polygamy ban in ‘Sister Wives’ case.”
Reuters reports that “Appeals court restores Utah’s polygamy law in ‘Sister Wives’ case.”
And Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has a blog post titled “Appeals court tosses ‘Sister Wives’ suit over Utah polygamy ban.”
You can access yesterday’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit at this link.
Law professor Jonathan Turley, who represents the challengers to Utah’s ban, yesterday had this blog post about the ruling.
“Senate Judiciary chairman Grassley tells Garland no hearings”: Richard Cowan of Reuters has this report.
“Garland’s Scorecard: 90 Percent against Business, 77 Percent for Regulators, EPA and Unions Undefeated.” The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) issued this news release and accompanying 108-page comprehensive judicial scorecard today.
In early news coverage, Dave Boyer of The Washington Times reports that “Merrick Garland is no moderate, small-business group says.”
And Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that “Obama court pick favors labor, says business group.”
“Arizona man’s life sentence for murder cut to 59 years; Court reconsiders life sentence for Navajo County man who was sentenced as a juvenile”: This article appeared in The Arizona Republic back in July 2014.
Today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision vacating the new sentence and remanding for resentencing.
“PER CURIAM, concurring”? As featured in a decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.
“Sky won’t fall with one less justice”: U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has this essay online at The Des Moines Register.
“Campus Dissidents Win in Court While Losing”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.
“Has Obama Upheld the Law?” In the April 21, 2016 issue of The New York Review of Books, law professor David Luban has this review of Charlie Savage’s new book, “Power Wars: Inside Obama’s Post-9/11 Presidency.”
“Court Tells States to Leave Google Alone”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.
“Grassley, Garland reprise 1990s U.S. judicial confirmation fight”: Richard Cowan of Reuters has this report, along with an article headlined “Senate primary-race pressures work against Obama’s court nominee.”
“Referendum on raising judges’ retirement age delayed until fall election”: Jan Murphy of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has an article that begins, “Pennsylvania voters will have plenty of important decisions to make when they enter the voting booth on April 26 but amending the state constitution to raise the mandatory retirement age for judges won’t be one of them.” The article links to this list of judges who would benefit over the next several years from an increase in Pennsylvania’s mandatory judicial retirement age from 70 to 75.
And tomorrow’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer will contain this month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column, headlined “Delay of Vote on Judicial Retirement Age Could Make One Cynical.” Therein, I explain why I oppose delaying a vote on the proposed constitutional amendment until November and why I will be voting against the proposal to increase Pennsylvania’s mandatory judicial retirement age from 70 to 75.
“Woman arrested, beaten at Chinese labor protest ruled eligible for asylum”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this blog post about an amended non-precedential ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued on Friday.
“Meet the Thai math prof whose copyright case is headed for SCOTUS — again”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today.
Programming note: This afternoon, the Philadelphia Phillies — now in the midst of a two-game winning streak — have their home opener, which I will be attending. As a result, additional posts will appear here tonight.
Update: Final score — San Diego Padres 4, Philadelphia Phillies 3.
“‘It was just awful’: The Clarence Thomas hearings, in the words of those who were there.” Roxanne Roberts of The Washington Post has this report.
