“New York Appeals Court Rules No Public Performance Rights in Pre-1972 Sound Recordings; In a big victory for SiriusXM and a major setback for owners of older sound recordings, a lower court’s decision is reversed”: Eriq Gardner has this post at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter about a ruling that the Court of Appeals of New York — that state’s highest court — issued today on certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
And in other coverage, Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “Sirius XM wins New York appeal over older songs.”
“Dozens Of Obama’s Judicial Nominees, Including Historic Picks, Won’t Make It Onto The Bench; Fifty-two of President Obama’s judicial nominees didn’t get a vote in the Senate; They include lawyers and judges who would have added new diversity to the federal bench”: Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News has this report.
“Supreme Court Nominations Will Never Be the Same”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.
“After Botched Execution, Arizona Agrees To Never Use A Controversial Sedative Again; The state has agreed to stop using midazolam, a drug similar to valium that was linked to several botched executions in recent years; Without the drug, the state has few options on how to go forward with lethal injections”: Chris McDaniel of BuzzFeed News has this report.
“5 ways Trump could reshape environmental law”: Amanda Reilly and Robin Bravender have this report.
“The Dan Markel Case: Watch Your Words About Wendi Adelson.” David Lat has this post today at “Above the Law.”
“Ducey adds two new justices to Arizona Supreme Court”: Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star has an article that begins, “The state’s two newest justices of the Arizona Supreme Court were sworn in Monday as Gov. Doug Ducey, who picked them, said they will ‘follow the rule of law.'”
“Appeals court overturns convictions in Probation Department scandal”: Milton Valencia of The Boston Globe has an article that begins, “A federal appeals court has vacated the 2014 convictions of three former Probation Department leaders who were accused of political corruption, allegedly running their department like a criminal enterprise.”
O’Ryan Johnson of The Boston Herald reports that “Appeals court overturns probation case, rebukes US Attorney Ortiz.”
Shira Schoenberg of The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts reports that “Appeals Court overturns guilty verdict in Probation Department corruption trial.”
And Daniel Marans of The Huffington Post reports that “Appeals Court Deals Rebuke To Controversial Prosecutor Who Targeted Aaron Swartz; U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz’s office ‘overstepped its bounds’ in pursuing federal charges, the ruling said.”
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit at this link.
“Constitution Check: Can a violation of the Emoluments Clause be proven?” Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.
“Yes, Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee Is Really Headed Back To His Old Job; At least Merrick Garland’s original lifetime appointment is still good”: Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post has this report.
And Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has a blog post titled “Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland to return to hearing appeals court cases.”
“‘Loser pays’ rule in Idaho court system could make justice available only to those with deep pockets”: Betsy Z. Russell of The Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Washington has an article that begins, “The Idaho Supreme Court has launched the state’s entire court system on a new track that might be called ‘loser pay’ — you lose a case, you pay the other side’s attorney fees. No other state in the nation has gone this route, and the Supreme Court’s 3-2 ruling, issued this fall, has Idaho’s legal community in an uproar.”
“Roberts denies plea to force Senate action on Garland”: The Associated Press has this report.
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. chief justice refuses to force vote on Obama high court pick.”
At the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center, Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Garland vote plea denied — maybe for the last time.”
And Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “Merrick Garland Will Be On The Bench — But Not The Supreme Court — In January; President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee won’t be on the high court; Garland will, though, go back to hearing cases in his old court on Jan. 18.”
“The Million Dollar Judges of 2015-16: Independent Spending and Secret Money.” Billy Corriher of the Center for American Progress has this post today.
“Deciding Unclear Originalist Cases: Towards Good-Faith Constitutional Construction.” Evan Bernick has this post today at the “Fed Soc Blog.”
“Student Research Presented in Supreme Court Case Hailed as ‘Precise and Powerful’; Side-by-Side Comparisons of Courts Reveal Fifth Circuit to be Outlier in Death Penalty Appeals”: Columbia Law School has posted this news release online.
“What The Money Says About Federal Judges on Trump’s SCOTUS List”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.
“My argument with Richard Posner about originalism”: Will Baude has this post today at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
“Court refuses to lift order for state to deliver water in Flint”: Paul Egan of The Detroit Free Press has this report.
Jennifer Chambers of The Detroit News reports that “Appeals court sides with water delivery for Flint.”
And Jiquanda Johnson of MLive.com reports that “State still must deliver water to Flint residents, federal court rules.”
You can access Friday’s order of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit at this link.
In Bashman news from Australia: The Australian Associated Press (via 7AD of Devonport, Tasmania) reports that “Man charged with using rock to bash man.”
“Court is asked to expand protections for gays, lesbians”: Bill Rankin of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has an article that begins, “The federal appeals court in Atlanta was asked Thursday to do something it’s never done before — rule that gays and lesbians cannot be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.”
According to the article, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit assigned to hear and decide the case consists of Circuit Judges William H. Pryor Jr. and Robin S. Rosenbaum and U.S. District Judge Jose E. Martinez (S.D. Fla.).
“Supreme Court To Return To 1984 Case Involving Prosecutor Misconduct”: Carrie Johnson had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Weekend Edition Saturday.”
“NC lawmakers create partisan election process for courts that review their laws”: In today’s edition of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina, Anne Blythe has an article that begins, “A law approved Friday by state lawmakers, and quickly signed by Gov. Pat McCrory in the waning days of his administration, changes the election process for the state Supreme Court that provides a check on the other two branches of government.”
“Imperial stubs out plans for Supreme Court battle on tobacco packaging rules”: Jillian Ambrose of The Telegraph (UK) has this report.
“The Prenda Saga Goes Criminal: Steele and Hansmeier Indicted On Federal Charges.” Ken White has this post at “Popehat.”
Erica Orden of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Two Lawyers Indicted in Connection With Fraudulent Lawsuits; Paul Hansmeier and John Steele would upload pornographic films, sue people who illegally downloaded them, indictment says.”
Mike Masnick of Techdirt has a post titled “Team Prenda Finally Goes To Jail: Hansmeier & Steele Indicted & Arrested.”
And Rhett Jones of Gizmodo has a post titled “Lawyers Accused of Extorting $6 Million From Porn Pirates in Elaborate Scam.”
“The Emoluments Clause: Its text, meaning, and application to Donald J. Trump.” Norman Eisen and law professors Richard Painter and Laurence H. Tribe (with the assistance of Joshua Matz) have posted this paper online at the Brookings Institution.
“SCOTUS Term Limits in the Next Congress”: Eric Segall and Gabe Roth have this post today at “Dorf on Law.”
“Judicial Departmentalism: An Introduction.” Law professor Kevin C. Walsh has posted this essay online at SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“).
“Oregon’s jury system designed to ‘dampen’ voice of minorities, judge rules”: In today’s edition of The Oregonian, Aimee Green has a front page article that begins, “A Portland judge Thursday declined to grant a new trial to a 33-year-old African American man despite his argument that he didn’t get a fair trial because only one of 12 jurors was black — and the juror’s vote ultimately didn’t count.”
“Defendants can’t undo class settlement even if underlying law changes — 6th Circuit”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post today.
“Feds charge porn-troll lawyers in major fraud, extortion case in Minneapolis; University of Minnesota law grads Paul Hansmeier and John Steele made millions suing people who feared exposure for downloading porn or couldn’t afford to battle them in court”: Stephen Montemayor of The Minneapolis Star Tribune has this report.
The newspaper has posted the 36-page federal indictment at this link.
And in other coverage, Joe Mullin of Ars Technica reports that “Prenda Law ‘copyright trolls’ Steele and Hansmeier arrested; Lawyers who turned porn lawsuits into big business now face criminal charges.”
“23 Questions for Seventh Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes”: This post appeared here at “How Appealing” back in October 2004.
“Five Things to Know About SCOTUS Short-Lister Sykes”: Patrick Gregory of Bloomberg BNA has this report.
“Securities Guru Rakoff Sparked Insider Trading Reversal From Afar”: Kimberly S. Robinson of Bloomberg BNA has an article that begins, “A fortuitous panel assignment in the Ninth Circuit allowed district court Judge Jed Rakoff to craft the decision that ultimately unseated a ground-breaking insider trading opinion from his home circuit.”
“How Trump’s election reignites the abortion wars”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com has this report.
“The (Potentially) Monumental Significance of the Jennings Supplemental Briefing Order”: Today at “Just Security,” Steve Vladeck has a post that begins, “On November 30, the US Supreme Court heard oral argument in Jennings v. Rodriguez — a case that arises from three categories of immigration detention in which the government has been holding tens of thousands of non-citizens in custody (and without periodic review) for extended periods of time (in some cases, for as long as several years).”
