“Supreme Court, Again Weighing Map Warped by Politics, Shows No Consensus”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Even on second look, Supreme Court seems stumped on gerrymandering issue.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court justices troubled by partisan gerrymandering, but unsure how to control it.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court criticizes partisan election maps, but a fix proves elusive.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Consensus Eludes Justices in Gerrymandering Case; Maryland Republicans say Democrats violated rights in redrawing congressional districts.”
Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court grapples with Maryland’s partisan gerrymander challenge.”
John Fritze of The Baltimore Sun reports that “Supreme Court wrestles with how political is too political in Maryland redistricting case.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices struggle with partisan redistricting again.”
Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “Supreme Court finds solution elusive in pivotal electoral map case.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Grapples With Partisan-Gerrymandering Lawsuits.”
Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court not finding consensus on gerrymandering.”
Steven Shepard of Politico reports that “Justices cast doubt on partisan redistricting; But it was unclear after oral arguments in a key case whether there are five votes to strike it down.”
Online at The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin has a post titled “The Supreme Court Seems Befuddled, Again, on Gerrymandering.”
Online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “Undecided Court: The justices appears no closer to solving partisan gerrymandering after yet another oral argument.”
And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Frustration Seems To Reign As Justices Hear Case Challenging Extreme Gerrymandering.”
You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Benisek v. Lamone, No. 17-333.
“FX Prevails in ‘Feud’ Defamation Suit Filed by Olivia de Havilland”: Sopan Deb of The New York Times has this report.
Andrew Dalton of The Associated Press reports that “Court tosses Olivia de Havilland lawsuit against FX’s Feud.”
Jan Wolfe of Reuters reports that “Olivia de Havilland’s ‘Feud’ lawsuit against FX Networks thrown out.”
Edvard Pettersson of Bloomberg News reports that “FX Networks Defeats Olivia De Havilland Lawsuit Over ‘Feud’ Biopic.”
Gene Maddaus of Variety reports that “Olivia de Havilland’s ‘Feud’ Suit Tossed by Appeals Court.”
At the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Ashley Cullins has a post titled “FX Wins Appellate Court ‘Feud’ With Olivia de Havilland; A California appeals court has reversed de Havilland’s early court win.”
And Nathan Solis of Courthouse News Service reports that “Appeals Court Tosses Olivia De Havilland’s Suit Over ‘Feud.’”
You can access Monday’s ruling of the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District at this link.
“Supreme Judicial Bullshit”: Law professor Adam J. Kolber has this article forthcoming in the Arizona State Law Journal (via “Legal Theory Blog“).
“No Arbitrary Power: An Originalist Theory of the Due Process of Law.” Law professor Randy E. Barnett and Evan Bernick have posted this article on SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“).
“The Justice of Contradictions: Antonin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption.” In fifteen minutes from now, at 3:30 p.m. eastern time and 12:30 p.m. pacific time, the Library Foundation of Los Angeles will host a discussion between Erwin Chemerinsky and Richard L. Hasen about Hasen’s new book. You can view the event live, online on YouTube via this link.
“Supreme Court Committee Seeks Public Comment on Draft Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion; Draft opinion provides guidance to judges for giving educational presentations to specialty bar associations”: The Judicial Council of California’s Public Affairs office issued this news release today. The draft formal opinion can be accessed here.
“The Supreme Court Proves It Didn’t Mean What It Said in King v. Burwell; In a new decision, the justices have embraced the same logic they rejected in King“: Dan McLaughlin has this essay online at National Review.
“Ohio Supreme Court moves to adopt ‘Bill O’Neill Rule'”: Randy Ludlow of The Columbus Dispatch has an article that begins, “Perhaps it’ll be known as the Bill O’Neill Rule. The Ohio Supreme Court is moving to change rules to require a judge who announces a run for partisan elective office to immediately resign from the bench.”
“An Undying Mystery: Part 1; In 1944, George Stinney was young, black and sentenced to die.” On Sunday, The Post and Courier of Charleston, South Carolina began a four-part series about this case written by Deanna Pan and Jennifer Berry Hawes. Part one’s headline is the title to this post, and you can access it here.
Part two is headlined “Young lawyer dusts off old evidence to cast doubt on George Stinney’s conviction.”
Part three is headlined “Quest to clear George Stinney’s name draws new scrutiny to another man.”
And part four is headlined “New details emerge about an alternate suspect in Alcolu girls’ murders.”
“Twitter and the #So-CalledJudge”: Law professor Elizabeth Thornburg has this article in the current issue of the SMU Law Review.
“The Interpretive Dance”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.
“Why the Insular Cases Must Become the Next Plessy”: Neil Weare has this post at the Harvard Law Review Blog.
“Supreme Court reverses Third Circuit appealability ruling”: Matthew Stiegler has this post at his “CA3blog.”
“The Justice of Contradictions: Legal scholar Richard Hasen offered his analysis of Justice Scalia’s time on the Supreme Court.” C-SPAN’s Book TV has posted at this link the video of this event, which also featured Adam Liptak of The New York Times and law professor Susan Low Bloch.
“Trump says Second Amendment won’t be repealed”: Alan Fram of The Associated Press has this report.
“Maryland redistricting case comes before Supreme Court”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.
And Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court weighs Republican challenge to Maryland electoral map.”
“Scalia’s Legacy Is Stronger Than Ever; Rather than fading since his death, it has only grown”: Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Some Thoughts on the Hughes Argument and Logical Subsets”: Adam Steinman has this post at his “Civil Procedure & Federal Courts Blog.”
“#MeToo And The Supreme Court”: Leah Litman has this post at the “Take Care” blog.
“Extreme Partisan Gerrymandering: The Supreme Court’s Play In 3 Acts.” Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”
“The Supreme Court’s Choice on Partisan Gerrymandering: Two cases offer very different solutions to a perennial problem of politicians attempting to cement themselves in power.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.
