How Appealing



Tuesday, May 16, 2017

“Bad Faith? What’s That? The Justice Department’s attempts to wish away Donald Trump’s Muslim ban statements are not working.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

Posted at 10:22 PM by Howard Bashman



“Spokeo backlash: Dismissed in federal court, class actions move to states.” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post today.

Posted at 10:14 PM by Howard Bashman



“Strict North Carolina Voter ID Law Thwarted After Supreme Court Rejects Case”: Adam Liptak and Michael Wines have this front page article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has a front page article headlined “Supreme Court won’t review decision that found N.C. voting law discriminates against African Americans.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “North Carolina voting law falls as Supreme Court turns down GOP appeal.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Voting advocates call Supreme Court’s decision not to hear North Carolina case a win.”

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Won’t Hear Appeal Seeking to Revive North Carolina’s Stricter Voting Rules; State moved to drop defense of voting rules after Democrat became governor.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchyDC reports that “Opponents of strict voter-ID laws get a victory, but it may not last.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court declines to revive North Carolina’s voter ID law.”

In today’s edition of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina, Anne Blythe has a front page article headlined “Supreme Court won’t rescue NC voter ID law; GOP leaders say they will try again with new law.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court order unlikely to deter voting restrictions.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court lets North Carolina voter law die, pleasing rights groups.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Revive North Carolina Voter-ID Law.”

Ariane de Vogue and Daniella Diaz of CNN.com report that “Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to ruling striking down NC voter ID law.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico.com reports that “Supreme Court leaves in place ruling that struck down N.C.’s voter ID law.”

Cristian Farias of HuffPost reports that “Restrictive North Carolina Voting Law Is Dead After Supreme Court Refuses To Review It; An appeals court found that the restrictions harked back to the Jim Crow era.”

And in commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “North Carolina’s ‘Monster’ Voter-Suppression Law Is Dead; It may have been too overtly racist for the Supreme Court; But don’t think the battle is over.”

Posted at 9:44 PM by Howard Bashman



15 years of “How Appealing” — reader mail: Today’s email is from Tony Mauro, who covers the U.S. Supreme Court for The National Law Journal:

In the early days of How Appealing, you may recall that when you went a day or so without posting, I would email you to be sure you were okay. That was partly out of concern for a friend, but also because it was difficult for a journalist covering the U.S. Supreme Court and appellate courts to function without your blog. It is not flashy or snarky, but it is indispensable for those of us who drink our coffee from #appellatetwitter mugs. It has made appellate law and courts accessible in ways that no one could have imagined before you launched it in 2002. Five years ago, when I interviewed you on the blog’s tenth anniversary, I asked you why you kept it alive for so long. You acknowledged that it has helped your practice in some ways, but said “the main reason that I have kept the blog going for ten years now is that I really enjoy maintaining it.” Here’s hoping that you still enjoy it and will keep it chugging along for years to come.

Tony, thanks so very much for this wonderful email! As you have explained, you are single-handedly responsible for all of the “Programming Note” posts that have appeared over the years preceding any extended absences from blogging. You were the first journalist to write an article drawing attention to “How Appealing,” which enabled this blog to gain many enthusiastic readers early in its tenure. And the role you played in helping the blog find a home at law.com for many years is greatly appreciated. I likewise hope that you too stay at it for many years to come. I will post another reader email tomorrow.

Posted at 5:23 PM by Howard Bashman



“3 Judges Weigh Trump’s Revised Travel Ban, but Keep Their Poker Faces”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Maura Dolan, Rick Anderson, and Jaweed Kaleem of The Los Angeles Times have an article headlined “Was Trump’s travel ban targeted at Muslims? A federal appeals court zeroes in on the debate.”

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Matt Zapotosky has an article headlined “Judges in travel ban appeal press lawyers about Trump’s comments.”

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Judge compares Trump travel ban to Japanese American internment.”

Patrick May of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “Trump’s travel ban comes under harsh criticism before the 9th Circuit; A federal panel in Seattle heard arguments on whether the president’s ban is unconstitutional.”

Daniel DeMay of SeattlePI.com reports that “Trump lawyer suggests ‘Muslim ban’ just campaign rhetoric.”

Rui Kaneya of Honolulu Civil Beat reports that “Federal Judges Question Whether Trump’s Travel Ban Is A ‘Muslim Ban’; A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel Monday heard arguments in Hawaii’s lawsuit to block key parts of the executive order restricting travel and immigration from countries.”

Gene Johnson of The Associated Press reports that “Federal judges ask if travel ban is biased against Muslims.”

Tom James of Reuters reports that “In travel ban case, U.S. judges focus on discrimination, Trump’s powers.”

Kartikay Mehrotra of Bloomberg News reports that “Travel Ban Hearing Puts Trump’s Stump Rhetoric on Trial.”

Laura Jarrett of CNN.com reports that “9th Circuit presses Trump admin on legality of travel ban.”

Lee Ross of FoxNews.com reports that “Trump travel ban faces skeptical panel in 9th Circuit hearing.”

Cristian Farias of HuffPost reports that “Donald Trump’s Least Favorite Court Grills Lawyers In Travel Ban Case; The 9th Circuit has previously ruled against the president’s blocked executive orders.”

Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “For The Second Time In Two Weeks, Judges Question Trump’s Travel Ban.”

And in commentary, at the “Lawfare” blog, Josh Blackman has a post titled “Hawaii v. Trump: What Would an ‘Objective Observer’ Think of President Trump’s Travel Ban?

Posted at 4:33 PM by Howard Bashman



“The Garland Gambit: Republicans floating Merrick Garland for FBI director should be careful what they wish for.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

Posted at 1:15 PM by Howard Bashman