“Three Cheers for Federalism: Justice Alito’s fantastic opinion striking down the federal ban on sports betting shows federalism can be good for liberals.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
And online at Bloomberg View, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Sports Betting Is a Victory for States’ Rights; The Supreme Court rules that the federal government can’t ban New Jersey from passing a new gambling law.”
“Pensacola’s Bayview Park cross lawsuit appeal hearing set for Wednesday in Atlanta”: Jim Little has this front page article in today’s edition of The Pensacola News Journal.
And Lawrence Specker of AL.com has an article headlined “Must Pensacola cross come down? Appeal arguments to be heard this week.”
“Hustler Hollywood loses appeal in effort to locate near Chuck E. Cheese’s in Castleton”: Mark Alesia of The Indianapolis Star has this report.
My earlier coverage of last Monday’s Seventh Circuit ruling can be accessed here.
“Court of Appeals judge ‘struggled’ over chimp rights fight”: Robert Gavin of The Times Union of Albany, New York has this report.
“Prosecutors ask Maryland’s highest court to reverse ruling of new trial for ‘Serial’ subject Adnan Syed”: Tim Prudente of The Baltimore Sun has this report.
And Brian Witte of The Associated Press reports that “Prosecutors seek to stop new trial in ‘Serial’ podcast case.”
“Retired Supreme Court judges object to 50-year embargo on documents: ‘Too long for any useful purpose.'” Sean Fine of The Toronto Globe and Mail has an article that begins, “Two retired judges of the Supreme Court of Canada say 50 years is too long to seal internal court documents revealing the communications between judges on cases.”
“State Supreme Court justice files suits against broadcasters to stop ads from airing; 1 judge orders halt”: John Moritz of The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette has an article that begins, “A judge in Washington County has issued a temporary restraining order to several television broadcasters, ordering them to stop airing ads against Supreme Court Justice Courtney Goodson that her lawyers claim are ‘false, misleading and defamatory.'”
“Liberals can’t have their cake and eat it too in Supreme Court case”: Law professor Jonathan Turley has this essay online at The Hill.
“Supreme Court rules rental car drivers have some right to privacy from police searches”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.
Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court greenlights driver rights in rental car case.”
Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court puts brakes on police searches of rental cars.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Limits Police Rental-Car Searches.”
And Ariane de Vogue and Maegan Vazquez of CNN report that “Supreme Court upholds privacy rights for unauthorized rental car drivers in search and seizure case.”
“Supreme Court Rules for Death Row Inmate Betrayed by His Lawyer”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Lawyer may not concede client’s guilt if defendant objects, Supreme Court rules.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court orders new trial for accused murderer who disputed his lawyer’s guilty plea.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has reports that “Supreme Court Rules Lawyer Can’t Say Client Did It When Defendant Claims Innocence; In separate case, justices extend search protections for rental-car drivers.”
Lea Skene of The Advocate of Baton Rouge, Louisiana reports that “Supreme Court rules for Louisiana inmate whose lawyer conceded guilt, against client’s wishes.”
Heather Nolan of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans reports that “Supreme Court grants new trial for La. death row inmate whose lawyer conceded guilt.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court rules for inmate whose lawyer conceded guilt.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. high court throws out Louisiana death row inmate’s conviction.”
And Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court sides with death row inmate after lawyer said he was guilty.”
“‘It’s time’: Louisiana House backs letting voters decide on controversial jury verdict law.” John Simerman of The Advocate of Baton Rouge, Louisiana has an article that begins, “For the first time since its birth in the Jim Crow era, a Louisiana law that allows juries to return non-unanimous verdicts in felony trials will go directly before state voters in a referendum, after the state House of Representatives voted 82-15 on Monday to place a proposed constitutional amendment to end the practice on the ballot.”
“Supreme Court Ruling Favors Sports Betting”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “States are free to authorize sports betting, Supreme Court rules.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court ruling opens the door for legalized sports betting nationwide.”
Brent Kendall and Chris Kirkham of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Ruling for New Jersey Opens Door to Sports Betting; Justices invalidate federal law that prohibited such wagers in most of the U.S.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court strikes down ban on sports betting in victory for New Jersey.”
Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court clears path for legalizing gambling.”
Brent Johnson and Jonathan D. Salant of NJ Advance Media have articles headlined “Sports betting coming to N.J. after U.S. Supreme Court kills federal ban” and “Old rivals Christie and Lesniak cheer their victory on sports betting.”
Gary Martin of The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that “Supreme Court strikes down law banning sports betting outside Nevada.”
Jessica Gresko and Wayne Parry of The Associated Press have a report headlined “Lay your money down: Court says states can OK sports betting.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. high court paves way for states to legalize sports betting.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “States Can Legalize Sports Gambling, U.S. Supreme Court Rules.”
Ariane de Vogue and Maegan Vazquez of CNN report that “Supreme Court lets states legalize sports gambling.”
Ryan Hutchins and Josh Gerstein of Politico report that “Las Vegas loses lock on legalized sports betting.”
And Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “The Supreme Court Clears The Way For Sports Betting; A federal law barring states from authorizing sports gambling violates the Constitution, the justices ruled on Monday.”
“Film puts meat behind the ‘Notorious RBG’ image”: David Bauder of The Associated Press has this report.
“Senate confirms two more of Trump’s judicial picks to the 7th Circuit”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.
And Tim Ryan of Courthouse News Service reports that “Senate Unanimously Confirms Two for the Seventh Circuit.”
Today, the U.S. Senate confirmed U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve (N.D. Ill.) to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by a vote of 91-to-0. And the Senate confirmed Michael Y. Scudder to the Seventh Circuit by a vote of 90-to-0.
Although some may disagree, in my view this is the leading law-related news thus far today: Turner Broadcasting today issued a news release titled “Harvey Birdman Named Attorney General.”
In news coverage of this most unexpected announcement, Allegra Frank of Polygon reports that “Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law returns this fall with a big promotion; Now he’s Harvey Birdman, Attorney General.”
Dino-Ray Ramos of Deadline Hollywood reports that “‘Harvey Birdman, Attorney General’ Lands At Adult Swim With New Special.”
Jon Lafayette of Broadcasting & Cable reports that “‘Harvey Birdman’ to Return in Special on Adult Swim; Gary Cole, Stephen Colbert in voice roles.”
River Donaghey of Vice reports that “‘Harvey Birdman’ Is Coming Back and Stephen Colbert Is Playing the President; The early 2000s classic returns this fall for a one-off special.”
At Collider, Dave Trumbore reports that “Adult Swim Appoints ‘Harvey Birdman, Attorney General’ Special to Air This Fall.”
And at Flixist, Kyle Yadlosky has a post titled “Prepare yourselves for Harvey Birdman, Attorney General; Justice to be served as an Adult Swim special.”
You can find many previous “How Appealing” mentions of Harvey Birdman via this link.
“$1 million mystery gift to inauguration traced to conservative legal activists”: Online at McClatchy DC, Robert Maguire of the Center for Responsive Politics has an article that begins, “One of the largest contributions to President Donald Trump’s inaugural committee in 2016 appears to have been orchestrated by a set of powerful conservative legal activists who have since been put in the driver’s seat of the administration’s push to select and nominate federal judges.”
“Even with Five Decisions Today the Court is Still Setting Records for its Slow Pace”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.
“Justice Anthony M. Kennedy: Should He Stay or Should He Go Now?” Tomorrow’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers, will contain this month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column.
In the May 21, 2018 issue of The New Yorker: Jill Lepore has an article headlined “The Rise of the Victims’-Rights Movement: How a conservative agenda and a feminist cause came together to transform criminal justice.”
And Evan Osnos has an article headlined “Trump vs. the ‘Deep State’: How the Administration’s loyalists are quietly reshaping American governance.”
“Tories may scrap civil partnerships; A Supreme Court battle to extend the status to straight couples may become moot as ministers respond to falling demand”: Nicholas Hellen and Caroline Wheeler of The Times of London have this report (subscription required for full access).
Owen Bowcott of The Guardian (UK) reports that “Plan to extend civil partnerships revealed in government report; Now-abandoned policy proposal emerges as heterosexual couple take legal fight to supreme court.”
Maya Oppenheim of The Independent (UK) reports that “Heterosexual couple urge ministers to ‘stop making excuses’ over civil partnerships for all couples; Couple want a legal recognition of their relationship which does not have ‘patriarchal baggage.’”
Olivia Rudgard of The Telegraph (UK) reports that “Civil partnerships could be scrapped as numbers plummet following gay marriage law.”
And BBC News reports that “Couple take civil partnership case to Supreme Court; A heterosexual couple who want to get a civil partnership, instead of a marriage, are taking their case to the Supreme Court.”
“The Supreme Court and Sharia law: How a fake-news story spreads; A bogus account began as a typo-ridden parody, but came to be embraced by millions.” Jason Schwartz and Shawn Musgrave of Politico have this report.
“Is Neil Gorsuch slowing down the Supreme Court?” Melissa Quinn of the Washington Examiner has this report.
“U.S. Supreme Court Turns Away Gun ‘Right to Sell’ Appeal”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.
“Supreme Court of Canada to keep records of deliberations secret for at least 50 years”: In today’s edition of The Toronto Globe and Mail, Sean Fine has a front page article that begins, “The judges of the Supreme Court of Canada have ensured that documents disclosing their secret inner workings will not be revealed during their lifetime — and possibly ever.”
Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued five rulings in argued cases.
1. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., No. 16-476. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion. Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a dissenting opinion in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined in full and Justice Breyer joined in part. You can access the oral argument via this link.
2. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court (with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch not participating) in Dahda v. United States, No. 17-43. You can access the oral argument via this link.
3. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court in McCoy v. Louisiana, No. 16-8255. Justice Alito issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
4. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Byrd v. United States, No. 16-1371. Justice Thomas issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. And Justice Alito issued a concurring opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.
5. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, No. 17-312. You can access the oral argument via this link.
“Will the Supreme Court Scrutinize Solitary Confinement? One Justice Offers a Map.” Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.
Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court today granted review in two new cases. In addition, the Court requested the views of the Solicitor General in one case.