Typo in the last sentence of the carry-over paragraph at the top of page 14 of the slip opinion in the Masterpiece Cakeshop majority opinion: A reader emails to note that the final sentence of the carry-over paragraph at the top of page 14 of the majority’s slip opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court‘s Masterpiece Cakeshop decision yesterday appears to be missing the word “against.” The sentence now reads:
This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law — a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation
The sentence no doubt should read:
This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law — a law that protects against discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation
Thanks to the reader who kindly brought this typo to my attention.
“The Cake Is Just the Beginning: Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch’s bizarre First Amendment theory would sabotage American civil rights law.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Will Obergefell Be the New Roe? Religious exemptions have already chipped away at the right to choose. LGBT equality could be next.” Louise Melling has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Ducking Day at the SCOTUS”: Michael Dorf has this post at “Dorf on Law.”
“Indiana’s chief justice leading national effort to use court system in combating opioid abuse”: Dan Carden of The Times of Munster, Indiana has this report.
“Court Weighs Whether Times Reporter Must Testify in ‘Baby Hope’ Trial”: Vivian Wang of The New York Times has this report.
“The Wisconsin Supreme Court Can Restore the Separation of Powers and Lead the Nation Forward; In Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. Wis. Dep’t of Revenue, the court has a chance to send America a message: Judging must be left to judges”: Ryan J. Owens has this essay online at National Review.
“How the Supreme Court bakery case could impact the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ‘fix'”: Kaitlin Lange and Mark Alesia have this front page article in today’s edition of The Indianapolis Star.
“Can an interest rate be ‘unconscionably’ high? The California Supreme Court will decide.” James Rufus Koren has this article in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.
“Colorado baker Jack Phillips says he’s ready to make wedding cakes again; But even he’s unsure of the legal hurdles ahead after narrow win in the U.S. Supreme Court”: Mark K. Matthews of The Denver Post has this report.
And yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment titled “Same-Sex Couple Reacts To Supreme Court Decision In Favor Of Baker.”
“Supreme Court Rules Gay Rights Do Not Extend To Dessert”: The Onion has this news brief.
“7th Circuit will hear DOJ appeal on nationwide injunctions — GOP state AGs in a bind”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.
“(When) Should Lower Courts Try to Predict Supreme Court Rulings? A plea for a more refined view, inspired by yesterday’s decision in Hughes.” Will Baude has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
“David Porter — Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit”: Harsh Voruganti has this post at his blog, “The Vetting Room.”
“The Marks Rule’s Fate After Hughes”: Richard M. Re has this post at “PrawfsBlawg.”
“Senate obstructionism handed a raft of judicial vacancies to Trump — what has he done with them?” Russell Wheeler has this post at the “FixGov” blog of the Brookings Institution.
“Foreign Labor Conditions Need Not Be Disclosed on Labels; Opinion Says California Consumer Protection Laws Cannot Be Used to Force Mars, Inc. To Advise That Cocoa Beans Are Picked on Farms Using Slave, Child Labor”: Metropolitan News-Enterprise has this report.
And Maria Dinzeo of Courthouse News Service reports that “Ninth Circuit Sides With Mars in Slave Labor Dispute.”
You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.
“Group tasked with examining harassment in the judiciary recommends sweeping changes”: Matt Zapotosky has this article in today’s edition of The Washington Post.
Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press has an article headlined “Report: Workplace misconduct in judiciary not common or rare.”
Joan Biskupic of CNN reports that “Judicial ‘inappropriate conduct’ is broader than isolated incidences, panel finds.”
And Tony Mauro and Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal report that “Judiciary’s Proposed Reforms Confront ‘Power Disparities’ Between Judges, Employees.”
“Chief Judges Announce Formation of Workplace Conduct Committee”: The United States Courts for the District of Columbia yesterday issued a news release that begins, “Chief Judges Merrick Garland and Beryl Howell have appointed a circuit-wide committee to address issues of workplace conduct.”
“Some Twitter users unblocked by Trump, but DOJ appealing ruling”: Levi Sumagaysay of The San Jose Mercury News has this report.
Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Trump to appeal judge’s ruling that he can’t block Twitter users.”
David Shepardson of Reuters reports that “U.S. appeals against ruling that Trump could not block Twitter followers.”
Brianna Sacks of BuzzFeed News reports that “Donald Trump Is Appealing A Court Ruling That Says He Can’t Block People On Twitter.”
And in commentary, online at The New York Times, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Are You Sure You Want a Right to Trump’s Twitter Account?“
“Why Bob Casey thinks the confirmation hearing for Pittsburgh attorney David Porter is breaking protocol”: Tracie Mauriello has this front page article in today’s edition of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
And at his “CA3blog,” Matthew Stiegler has a post titled “ABA rates David Porter ‘Qualified.’”
Third Circuit nominee David J. Porter is the lone federal appellate court nominee scheduled to testify at tomorrow’s confirmation hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“Judges Criticize Allergan’s Use of Mohawk Tribe’s Sovereignty”: Susan Decker of Bloomberg News has a report that begins, “Allergan Plc faced a skeptical appeals court Monday as the company defended its use of an American Indian tribe’s sovereign immunity to avoid challenges to its patents from generic-drug makers.”
You can access the audio of yesterday’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit via this link (13.8 MB mp3 audio file).
