“Billionaires vs. the Press in the Era of Trump: A small group of superrich Americans — the president-elect among them — has laid the groundwork for an unprecedented legal assault on the media; Can they succeed?” Emily Bazelon will have this article in tomorrow’s edition of The New York Times Magazine.
“Lee v. Tam: Offensive Trademarks at the Supreme Court — Speech Rights and Government Prerogative (A Series); Part Two: Offensive Speech Connected with Government Approval.” Erica Goldberg recently had this post at her “In a Crowded Theater” blog.
“D.C. Circuit Review — Reviewed: ‘The Most Important Separation-of-Powers Case in a Generation.'” Aaron Nielson has this post at the “Notice & Comment” blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation.
“Trump’s Next Battle: Keeping These Republican Senators Happy.” The new installment of Carl Hulse’s “On Washington” column begins, “While much of the attention in Washington is on who will fill the Trump cabinet, it is already clear who some of the most important people will be when it comes to fulfilling the Trump agenda. One group will be particularly well positioned to either accommodate or infuriate Donald J. Trump: a handful of independent-minded Republican senators who have shown a willingness to break with the president-elect and have readily split with their own party on issues in the past.”
Strange way to begin a majority opinion has been vacated by granting of rehearing en banc: On September 28, 2016, Circuit Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a majority opinion on behalf of a divided three-judge panel that began, “When I was growing up, my parents told me not to judge a book by its cover.”
Sadly for those who admire non-traditional majority opinion opening lines, on Monday of this week the Eleventh Circuit issued an order granting rehearing en banc in the case, which had the effect of vacating the three-judge panel’s majority opinion and judgment.
“Consumer Protection Bureau Chief Braces for a Reckoning”: Stacy Cowley has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.
“Boulder magnet company wins a court victory against CPSC”: Ben Miller of the Denver Business Journal has this report.
And at the “Consumerist” blog, Chris Morran has a post titled “Court Overturns Federal Ban On Potentially Dangerous, High-Power Magnet Toys, Gadgets.”
You can access Tuesday’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit at this link.
“‘Madden NFL’ Creator Loses Appeal Over Video Game Royalties; Electronic Arts gets the win because Robin Antonick failed to introduce source code at trial to show how later versions of game were similar to his original”: Eriq Gardner has this post at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued on Tuesday.
“Appeals court: It doesn’t matter how wanted man was found, even if via stingray; Dissenting judge: ‘It is time for the stingray to come out of the shadows.'” Cyrus Farivar of Ars Technica has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued on Wednesday.
“How Trump DOJ could upend one of the biggest business cases facing SCOTUS”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.
“Eves loses appeal of federal lawsuit against LePage; The outgoing House speaker sued Maine’s governor in 2015 after LePage intervened in Eves’ hiring as president of Good Will-Hinckley”: Scott Thistle of The Portland Press Herald has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued on Tuesday.
“Puerto Rico takes step toward having reps; Boston appeals panel moves suit forward”: Bob McGovern of The Boston Herald has an article that begins, “A dogged attorney from Puerto Rico who has been fighting for years to get his homeland five seats in the U.S. House of Representatives says he is as close as ever to victory after a decision by a federal appeals court that could allow his arguments to move forward.”
You can access Wednesday’s ruling of a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit at this link.
“Overtime Rule Is but the Latest Obama Initiative to End in Texas Court”: Noam Scheiber and Barry Meier have this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.
“A judge, not a justice, Garland expected to return to cases”: Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Judge Merrick Garland will soon put on his black judicial robe for the first time in months. The bad news for President Barack Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court is that Garland’s going back to hearing cases at his old job, not the high court.”
“Judging Trump: Supreme Court choice on president-elect’s immediate agenda.” Bill Mears of FoxNews.com has this report.
“Chasing Abortion Rights Across the State Line”: Linda Greenhouse has this essay online today at The New York Times.
“California’s top court will review major public pension ruling”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has an article that begins, “The California Supreme Court decided Tuesday to review a ruling that would give state and local governments new authority to cut public employee pensions.”
“Can Trump put another Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court?” David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.
“‘Snookered’ Supreme Court Pushes Back in Billion Dollar Antitrust Case”: Kimberly Robinson of Bloomberg BNA has this report.
“Florida Supreme Court hands down new ruling in fight over death penalty”: Rene Stutzman and Gal Tziperman Lotan of The Orlando Sentinel have this report.
And Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “Florida Supreme Court Signals Possible Upheaval For State’s Death Row.”
You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Florida at this link.
“Voting Rights in the Age of Trump”: In yesterday’s edition of The New York Times, Ari Berman had an op-ed that begins, “In June 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in Shelby County v. Holder that states with a long history of racial discrimination no longer needed to approve any proposed changes to their voting procedures with the federal government, as had long been required under the Voting Rights Act. That meant this year’s presidential election was the first in 50 years without the full protections of the act.”
“Trump’s SCOTUS Shortlister Kethledge Doesn’t Mince Words”: Patrick Gregory of Bloomberg BNA has this report.
“Senate trade-off: More Obama judges, Trump gets nominees.” Mary Clare Jalonick of The Associated Press has an article that begins, “Republicans are gleeful over Democratic-engineered rule changes that will make it easier for President-elect Donald Trump to get his Cabinet nominees through the Senate. Yet Democrats see a lasting upside from what they did: allowing President Barack Obama to shape the federal judiciary for years to come.”
“Does the Constitution put limits on a president’s private business ties?” Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.
Programming note: On Tuesday, I will be attending an out-of-the-office meeting that could last all day in connection with an appeal on which I am working. As a result, new posts may not appear here until Tuesday evening.
As always while I am away from my office, in the interim appellate-related retweets may appear on this blog’s Twitter feed.
“Goodyear asks SCOTUS to restrict federal judges’ inherent sanctions power”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post today.
“Appeals court: ‘King Kong’ comment prejudiced all-white jury.” Meg Kinnard of The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued today.
“U.S. court upholds AstraZeneca, Ranbaxy win in Nexium antitrust trial”: Brendan Pierson of Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued today.
“UK’s top judge unveils plan to make supreme court more diverse; Lord Neuberger, who retires in 2017, says flexible working will be offered for new appointees to white male-dominated bench”: Owen Bowcott of The Guardian (UK) has this report.
And Kate McCann of The Telegraph (UK) reports that “President of the Supreme Court announces he will resign after controversial Article 50 hearing.”
“Former Roberts Court Clerks’ Success Litigating Before the Supreme Court”: Adam Feldman has posted this paper online at SSRN.
“Supreme Court won’t investigate leaks”: Patrick Marley of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has an article that begins, “The Wisconsin Supreme Court declined Monday to appoint a special master to investigate leaks from a long-running John Doe probe to a newspaper, leaving it to Attorney General Brad Schimel to look into it on his own.”
“Will John Roberts Save the Supreme Court From Donald Trump? Maybe not — but he might.” Lara Bazelon has this jurisprudence essay online today at Slate.
“Reasons to Suspect Trump Will Nominate a Federal Court of Appeals Judge to SCOTUS”: Adam Feldman has this post today at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.
“The D.C. Circuit, the Trump Administration, and Chevron Step One-and-a-Half”: Daniel Hemel and Aaron Nielson have this post at the “Notice & Comment” blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation.
Also at that blog, Nielson has another post titled “D.C. Circuit Review — Reviewed: Dear Congress . . .”
“The Total Trumpism of Jeff Sessions, Attorney General Nominee”: Amy Davidson has this post online at The New Yorker.