“Federal appeals court strikes down ballot selfies ban”: Kevin Landrigan of The New Hampshire Union Leader has this report.
In today’s edition of The Concord Monitor, David Brooks has a front page article headlined “State’s law against ‘ballot selfies’ again rejected by federal court.”
Katie Rogers of The New York Times reports that “Court Overturns New Hampshire Ban on Selfies (and Snapchat) in Voting Booths.”
Joe Palazzolo of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Appeals Court Overturns Ban on Selfies in Voting Booths; First Circuit strikes down a New Hampshire law that banned voters from sharing photos of their marked ballots on social media.”
Jaclyn Reiss and Milton Valencia of The Boston Globe have an article headlined “Go ahead and take a ballot selfie — it’s now legal in N.H.”
Gintautas Dumcius of The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts reports that “US appeals court says ban on ‘ballot selfies’ is unconstitutional.”
The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: Law banning people’s ballot photos unconstitutional.”
David Kravets of Ars Technica reports that “New Hampshire law barring ballot selfies is unconstitutional, court rules; Not even the motive to limit voter coercion can bar right to ballot booth selfies.”
Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “New Hampshire ‘Ballot Selfie’ Ban Is Unconstitutional, Appeals Court Rules; The ACLU — supported by a journalists’ group and Snapchat — sued the state over the law.”
Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post has an article headlined “Snapchat Fans, Rejoice: Ballot Selfies Are Totally Constitutional In New Hampshire; You can’t be prosecuted for uploading a selfie while you cast your vote.”
And Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has a blog post titled “Appeals court: Ballot selfie ban unconstitutional.”
You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit at this link.
“A Loss for Citizens United. And for Democrats.” Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.
“Court to rule on offensive trademarks”: Lyle Denniston has this blog post today.
“Malcolm Lucas, former California chief justice, dies at 89”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.
And Jeremy B. White and Christopher Cadelago of The Sacramento Bee report that “Former California Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas dies at 89.”
“Supreme Court to Hear Case on Objectionable Trademarks; The case involving the name of an Asian-American rock band could have implications for the Washington Redskins”: Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal have this report.
“Obama’s Former Supreme Court Lawyer Says He ‘Hated Losing’ Big Immigration Case; Donald Verrilli, who helped save Obamacare twice, is returning to private practice”: Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post has this report.
“At heart of transgender rights case at SCOTUS, a controversial legal doctrine”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post today.
“Conservative legal tactic could imperil Clinton agenda; By shopping for like-minded judges and seeking nationwide injunctions, GOP-led states have had success blocking presidential orders”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this report.
“Record Number of UVA Law Alumni Clerk for U.S. Appeals Courts”: The University of Virginia School of Law issued this news release today.
“How Mitch McConnell won the Supreme Court fight”: Joan Biskupic of CNN.com has this report.
“‘I Wanted to Dramatize the Racist Attitude of the Majority’: An interview with 94-year-old Judge Damon Keith, author of the most important voting rights dissent in recent history.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Markel suspect seeking change of venue”: Karl Etters of The Tallahassee Democrat has this report.
“Law on Disparaging Trademarks Gets Supreme Court Review”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court to review case important to Redskins trademark fight.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court to decide if offensive names like ‘Redskins’ and ‘Slants’ can be trademarked.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court to consider disparaging trademarks” and “Supreme Court to hear special education case.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Takes Up Trademark Case That Might Affect Redskins” and “Credit-Card Surcharge Laws Draw Review at U.S. High Court.”
Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court to hear dispute over trademark for band The Slants.” And Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear credit card surcharge fee fight.”
Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court today granted review in eight new cases.
In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court to hear challenge over offensive trademarks“; “Supreme Court to hear ‘swipe fees’ case“; “Supreme Court to hear case over deportations“; “Justices take up fight over refunding fees in criminal cases“; and “Supreme Court says it will hear special education case.”
“Alito Recalls Garth as ‘Epitome of Dedication'”: David Gialanella of the New Jersey Law Journal has this report.
“Pondering the Supreme Court’s Future”: Linda Greenhouse has this essay online today at The New York Times.
“The Climate-Change Countdown: Why a Donald Trump Supreme Court pick could destroy progress in the fight against global warming.” Elizabeth Kolbert has this post online today at The New Yorker.
