“U.S. Supreme Court agrees to reconsider case of Alaska moose hunter and his hovercraft”: Zaz Hollander of The Anchorage Daily News has this report.
Rod Boyce of The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reports that “Supreme Court to hear appeal from Alaska hovercraft owner.”
Miranda Green of The Hill reports that “Supreme court to rehear Alaska moose hunter, hovercraft case.”
And Barbara Leonard of Courthouse News Service has a report headlined “Round 2 at High Court for Alaskan Hovercraft Hunter.”
“Sexual Harassment and the Bench”: Former U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner has this essay online at Stanford Law Review, part of an online symposium titled “#MeToo and the Future of Sexual Harassment Law” whose contents you can access here and here.
“How Trump Corrupts the Rule of Law”: Law professor Leah Litman has this essay online at The New York Times.
“Should Judges Consider Costs To The Parties In Deciding Whether Oral Argument Of An Appeal Is Worthwhile?” 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.
“The Supreme Court Would Prefer Not To: Amid the partisan crossfire of Washington, Gill v. Whitford provides the latest example of the justices keeping their heads down.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.
“Jay Richardson — Nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit”: Harsh Voruganti has this post at his blog, “The Vetting Room.”
“Justices Punt on Gerrymandering, But Coach Kagan Has a Plan; The case goes back to the lower courts, where the plaintiffs would be smart to employ her strategy”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.
Online at Slate, law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has a jurisprudence essay titled “Justice Kennedy Still Won’t Rule on Gerrymandering; The latest SCOTUS opinions show that the other justices are still trying to convince their swing voter to make up his mind.” And Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “The Supreme Court Punted on Partisan Gerrymandering. The Fight to Kill It Is Far From Over.”
“Judge Raymond Kethledge and the Separation of Powers”: Charles J. Cooper and G. Ryan Snyder have this guest post at the “Notice & Comment” blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation.
“Abortions, the Muslim ban and other controversial cases of Trump’s Ohio nominees for a federal appeals court”: Eric Heisig of The Cleveland Plain Dealer has this report.
“At Supreme Court, Justices Clash on Right to Vote”: Kenneth Jost has this post at his blog, “Jost on Justice.”
“Supreme Court Avoids an Answer on Partisan Gerrymandering”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court sidesteps decision on partisan gerrymandering in rulings on Wisconsin, Maryland cases.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court decides not to decide on constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court punts on two cases regarding partisan election districts.”
Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Sidesteps Major Legal Issues in Gerrymandering Cases; The court left for another day resolution of the hardest question in two closely watched cases.”
Alex Swoyer and Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times report that “Supreme Court declines to stop political gerrymandering; Court tells plaintiffs to prove they suffered from partisan legislative maps.”
Patrick Marley of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that “U.S. Supreme Court sends Wisconsin redistricting case back to lower court, leaving GOP-friendly legislative map in place.”
Matthew DeFour and Matthew DeFour of The Wisconsin State Journal report that “U.S. Supreme Court punts on gerrymandering case, says plaintiffs lack standing.”
Jeff Barker of The Baltimore Sun reports that “Supreme Court side-steps definitive ruling in Maryland congressional redistricting case.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has a report headlined “Justices: No definitive ruling on partisan districts.”
Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley of Reuters report that “Supreme Court declines to curb electoral map manipulation.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Casts Doubt on Statewide Gerrymandering Challenges.”
Ariane de Vogue and Eli Watkins of CNN report that “Supreme Court sidesteps partisan gerrymandering cases, let maps stand for now.”
Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Supreme Court punts on partisan gerrymandering cases.”
Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court sidesteps partisan gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Maryland cases.”
Todd Ruger of Roll Call reports that “Supreme Court Punts on Partisan Gerrymandering Cases; Justices turn aside case dealing with Wisconsin maps, ruled narrowly on Maryland case.”
Sam Levine of HuffPost reports that “Supreme Court Punts On Partisan Gerrymandering; This case has been one of the most closely watched this term.”
And Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “The Supreme Court Just Sidestepped Questions About How Courts Can Decide If Redistricting Is Too Partisan; In a pair of cases, the justices avoided providing answers about whether and how partisan gerrymandering claims can be resolved by courts.”
Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court issued five rulings in argued cases.
1. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court in Rosales-Mireles v. United States, No. 16-9493. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
2. Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in Chavez-Meza v. United States, No. 17-5639. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined. And Justice Neil M. Gorsuch did not take part in the decision. You can access the oral argument via this link.
3. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court in Lozman v. Riviera Beach, No. 17-21. Justice Thomas issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.
4. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Gill v. Whitford, No. 16-1161. Justice Kagan issued a concurring opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor joined. And Justice Thomas issued an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
5. And the Court issued a unanimous per curiam decision affirming the judgment in Besinek v. Lamone, No. 17-333. You can access the oral argument via this link.
Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in five new cases. In addition, the Court requested the views of the Solicitor General in one case.
And in Kaczmar v. Florida, No. 17-8148, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissent from the denial of certiorari.
“OT2017 #29: ‘Average Joe.'” You can access today’s new installment of the “First Mondays” podcast, featuring Ian Samuel and recurring guest host Leah Litman, via this link.
“At Denver PrideFest parade, celebrations drown out Supreme Court decision in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop”: Danika Worthington of The Denver Post has this report.
“Proposal would change way judges are elected to Pennsylvania’s highest courts”: Wes Venteicher of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has this report.
And Marc Levy of The Associated Press reports that “Republicans move to remake court after gerrymandering case.”
“Supreme Court faces major decision on partisan gerrymandering”: Lydia Wheeler of The Hill has this report.
“Sexual Harrassment In Courts”: This audio segment featuring attorney Jaime Santos appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”
“Police Use of Driver’s License Databases to Nab Crooks Spurs Privacy Concerns; Thirty-one states now allow law-enforcement officials to access license photos to help identify potential suspects”: Zusha Elinson of The Wall Street Journal has this report.
“California appeals court reinstates law allowing terminally ill patients to end their lives”: Esmeralda Bermudez of The Los Angeles Times has this report.
Lisa M. Krieger of The San Jose Mercury News has an article headlined “Judge: Californians can once again use aid-in-dying drugs; Appellate Court restores the End of Life Option Act while litigation is ongoing.”
And John Rogers of The Associated Press reports that “State appeals court reinstates California’s right-to-die law.”
“Charleston burglar says phone lost at scene was still private; Supreme Court disagrees”: Andrew Knapp of The Charleston (S.C.) Post and Courier has this report on a ruling that the Supreme Court of South Carolina issued on Wednesday.
“Supreme Court Judge Anthony Kennedy gets celeb treatment in NYC”: Ian Mohr of The New York Post’s Page Six has this report.
“Wyoming Supreme Court chief justice to retire”: Shane Sanderson has this front page article in today’s edition of The Casper Star-Tribune.
“Law societies can deny accreditation to B.C. evangelical university’s law school graduates: Supreme Court.” Sean Fine of The Toronto Globe and Mail has this report.
Alex McKeen of The Toronto Star reports that “Advocates ‘delighted,’ school ‘troubled’ by Trinity Western court decision.”
Glenda Luymes of The Vancouver Sun reports that “Court ruling puts pressure on Trinity Western University to change its community covenant.”
Jim Bronskill of The Canadian Press reports that “Supreme court affirms sexual identity protections in Christian law school decisions.”
Kathleen Harris of CBC News reports that “Trinity Western loses fight for Christian law school as court rules limits on religious freedom ‘reasonable’; Supreme Court of Canada says 7-2 decision will ensure open access for LGBT students.” And Clare Hennig of CBC News has an article headlined “TWU law school ruling: ‘limiting diversity’ or ‘a game-changer for LGBTQ rights’? Supreme Court ruled that law societies do not have to accredit Trinity Western’s students.”
Andrew Weichel and Jon Woodward of CTV have an article headlined “Will Trinity Western update controversial covenant after SCC ruling?”
In commentary, online at The Toronto Globe and Mail, Michael Coren has an essay titled “Trinity Western ruling: a stand against harmful LGBTQ discrimination.”
And online at The National Post, Colby Cosh has an essay titled “Does the Supreme Court’s TWU decision herald a more disputatious future? Some might say there was a little crankiness as the nine justices produced four separate decisions, voting 7-2 overall in favour of the law societies.” Chris Selley has an essay titled “Supreme Court strikes a blow against religious freedom with Trinity Western decision; Canadian courts have long protected religious practices they believe to be sincerely held, not necessarily essential or commanded by scripture; This turned that on its head.” And Ray Pennings has an essay titled “The Supreme Court decides that faith is now banned from Canada’s public spaces; We should all prepare ourselves for the sting of once-basic freedoms being increasingly denied.”
The Supreme Court of Canada yesterday issued two related rulings, and you can access them here and here.
“‘The Waiver Process Is Fraud’: Previously undisclosed statements from two consular officers raise questions about the legality of the Trump administration’s third travel ban.” Jeremy Stahl has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“D.C. Circuit Review — Reviewed: Let’s Be Practical.” Aaron Nielson has this post at the “Notice & Comment” blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation.
“U.S. does not have to pay insurers for Obamacare ‘risk corridor’ — court”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued yesterday.
“En Banc Denied: Walker Process Claims Stay out of the Federal Circuit.” Dennis Crouch has this post at his “Patently-O” blog about an order denying rehearing en banc, and the dissent therefrom, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued today.
“Martins Beach: Surfers tell Supreme Court billionaire Vinod Khosla has no right to block public from shoreline.” Paul Rogers has this front page article in today’s edition of The San Jose Mercury News. You can view the brief in opposition filed in the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.
“‘Bourbon War’ Ends After Skirmish in Sixth Circuit”: Kevin Koeninger of Courthouse News Service has this report on a ruling that Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton issued yesterday on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
“The Supreme Court Made a Good Decision on Election Law: In praise of the ruling in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky.” Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
And Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “The Sam Alito Treatment: How the conservative justice’s searingly funny questions doomed Minnesota’s ban on political apparel at the polls.”
“A ‘view’ from the courtroom: ‘Only a few more days.'” Mark Walsh has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
“Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Barring Political Apparel at Polling Places”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court says Minnesota ban on political apparel in polling places too broad.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court gives voters more freedom to wear political T-shirts to polling places.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court strikes down political dress code at polls in latest decision involving voting.”
Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Strikes Down Minnesota Law Banning Political Apparel at Polling Stations; By a 7-to-2 vote, court limited how far states can go to restrict political speech near voting booth.”
Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court rules state law banning political apparel at polls is illegal.”
Erin Golden of The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that “Supreme Court strikes down Minnesota law on political clothing at polling places; U.S. Supreme Court rules Minnesota law is too broad.”
Tad Vezner of The Pioneer Press of St. Paul, Minnesota reports that “Supreme Court strikes down Minnesota’s voter clothing law.” According to the version of the article that currently appears online, “Justice Maria Sotomayor wrote the dissenting minority opinion which stated the high court should have had the Minnesota Supreme Court weigh in before declaring the law unconstitutional.”
Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Justices strike down Minnesota voter clothing restrictions.”
Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court throws out Minnesota ban on voter political apparel.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Voids Law Banning Political Apparel at Polls.”
Ariane de Vogue and Maegan Vazquez of CNN report that “Supreme Court strikes down Minnesota law that banned political apparel at polling place.”
Bill Mears of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court strikes down Minnesota law prohibiting voters from wearing political apparel to polls.”
Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Supreme Court strikes down law banning political clothing at polls.”
Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “The Supreme Court Rules That Bans On ‘Political Apparel’ In Polling Places Must Be ‘Sensible’; The 7–2 ruling struck down a Minnesota law.”
Todd Ruger of Roll Call reports that “Supreme Court Strikes Down State Ban on Polling Place Apparel; Century-old Minnesota law is similar to those in about nine other states.”
Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court strikes down ban on political apparel at polling places.”
And on this evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Delivers TKO Win On Political Apparel Ban.”
“Supreme Court Revives Price-Fixing Case Against Chinese Vitamin C Makers; Justices unanimously rule lower court was too deferential to Chinese government”: Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has this report.
Robert Delaney of The South China Morning Post reports that “US Supreme Court rules against Chinese vitamin C producers in antitrust case; The justices said US courts were not bound by China’s assertion that the vitamin makers, who are accused of price-fixing, were only following their country’s laws.”
Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court addresses question of foreign law in US courts.”
Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley of Reuters report that “Trump gets win at U.S. Supreme Court in China antitrust case.”
And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Backs Trump, Vitamin Purchasers in China Clash.”
“Supreme Court justices are selling stocks that can lead to forced recusals from cases”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.
