“Lawyers can get paid a cut from class-action settlements”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has an article that begins, “In a victory for lawyers who file class-action suits in California, generally on behalf of employees or consumers, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that they can be paid a percentage of the settlements they negotiate with their adversaries. The unanimous decision resolved an arcane issue that had been fiercely contested in the legal profession.”
And Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has a post titled “California Supreme Court OKs class action fees based on settlement size.”
You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of California, including an interesting concurring opinion written by Justice Goodwin H. Liu, at this link.
“First Amendment Has the Teeth to Help Consumers”: Online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay today that begins, “The First Amendment was called in to do the dirty work last week on an Ohio rule that bans dentists from advertising their specialties while continuing to practice general dentistry.”
“What Would Clinton Win Mean for SCOTUS?” Kimberly Robinson of Bloomberg BNA has this report.
“Markel suspect Rivera moved from Leon County Jail”: Karl Etters of The Tallahassee Democrat has this report.
“Former Marine’s religious freedom claims rejected by appeals court”: Bill Mears of FoxNews.com has this report.
Dianna Cahn of Stars and Stripes reports that “Court rules Marine’s religious rights not violated.”
And The Associated Press reports that “Military court rejects religious angle in Marine’s discharge.”
You can access yesterday’s 4-to-1 ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces at this link.
I previously linked to news coverage of the oral argument of this appeal in a post you can access here.
“Reid predicts Clinton will choose Garland for Supreme Court”: The Associated Press has this report.
Reuters has a report headlined “Clinton would stick with Garland as nominee for Supreme Court: Reid.”
And Louis Nelson of Politico.com reports that “Harry Reid won’t rule out hardball tactics in Merrick Garland fight.”
“South Carolina Law on Disrupting School Faces Legal Challenge”: Erik Eckholm will have this article in Friday’s edition of The New York Times.
“U.S. judges cannot expunge convictions despite job threats — court”: Nate Raymond has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.
“Chief Justice urges quick appointments to Supreme Court; Replacing Justice Thomas Cromwell is taking too long, says Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin”: Joanna Smith of The Canadian Press has this report.
And Tonda MacCharles of The Toronto Star has an article headlined “More indigenous judges needed in lower courts to develop skills for Supreme Court: Beverley McLachlin; Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said while she welcomes ethnic diversity and more aboriginal judges in the system, she suggested they must work their way up.”
“U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor adds Anchorage stop to Alaska visit”: Suzanna Caldwell of Alaska Dispatch News has this report.
“Is Trump Guilty of Inciting Violence Against Clinton? Trump’s comments don’t appear to have broken any laws, but assaulted the very concept of free speech.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.
“Glenn Beck suggests revealing sources could get them killed”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has a blog post that begins, “One day after a federal judge ordered Glenn Beck to divulge the names of two sources he relied on for reporting about the Boston Marathon bombing, the conservative media personality is suggesting that doing so might get them murdered.”
“U.S. court blocks FCC bid to expand public broadband”: Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued yesterday.
And in other coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court overturns ruling allowing municipal broadband to grow.”
“As voter rights cases churn through courts, rights are uncertain; But confusion is guaranteed”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this post today at the “Monkey Cage” blog of The Washington Post.
“Appeals court blocks voter ID changes”: Jason Stein and Patrick Marley have this front page article in today’s edition of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
In today’s edition of The Wisconsin State Journal, Mark Sommerhauser has a front page article headlined “Court stays voter ID ruling, narrowing options for voters who lack IDs.”
In today’s edition of The Washington Times, Stephen Dinan has a front page article headlined “Voting-rights activists, anti-fraud crusaders clash over ID laws as election looms.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Appeals Court Reinstates Wisconsin Voter-ID Law; Federal appeals court said lower court ruling was overly broad by allowing any voter to avoid presenting ID by filing an affidavit.”
In today’s edition of The New York Times, Michael Wines has an article headlined “Appeals Court Prevents Voting Without ID in Wisconsin.”
In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Matt Zapotosky has an article headlined “In Wisconsin, a controversial voter-ID law could help choose the president.”
Josh Gerstein of Politico.com reports that “Appeals court blocks order easing Wisconsin voter ID law.”
Tal Kopan of CNN.com reports that “Court blocks remedy on Wisconsin voter ID law.”
The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court stays ruling on voter ID.”
Reuters reports that “Appeals court suspends ruling rejecting parts of Wisconsin voter ID law.”
And at his “Election Law Blog,” Rick Hasen has a post titled “7th Circuit Reverses (for Now at Least) Softening of WI Voter ID Rule: What’s Next?”
You can view yesterday’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granting a stay pending appeal at this link.
“Florida appeals court clears way for four death penalty cases to proceed with trials”: Arek Sarkissian of The Naples Daily News has this report on a ruling that Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal issued yesterday.
“The Libertarian Case for Originalism”: Evan Bernick as this post at the “Fed Soc Blog.”
“A Formula For Supreme Court Clerkships? Harvard and Garland.” Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.
