“Federal court ruling could limit abortion in Missouri, including at KC clinic”: Andy Marso and Tony Rizzo of The Kansas City Star have this report.
Robert Patrick of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that “Judge should have weighed more evidence before staying abortion restrictions, appeals court says.”
Victoria Cheyne of The Columbia Missourian reports that “Missouri to begin enforcing abortion regulations after ruling in lawsuit, officials say.”
And Summer Ballentine of The Associated Press reports that “Federal judges allow Missouri to enforce abortion rules.”
My earlier coverage of today’s Eighth Circuit ruling can be accessed here.
“The Judicial Assault on Roe v. Wade Has Begun; With Kavanaugh’s confirmation imminent, anti-abortion judges are declaring war on the right to choose”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“‘Stolen’ Matisse can stay in London’s National Gallery: U.S. appeals court.” Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report on a Summary Order that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.
“Government: We Can Still Regulate Morality.” Dennis Crouch has this post at his “Patently-O” blog about a petition for writ of certiorari that the federal government recently filed in the U.S. Supreme Court.
My earlier coverage of the Federal Circuit’s ruling at issue in the cert. petition appeared in a post titled “Vulgar Clothing Trademark Deserves Legal Protection, Court Rules.”
“U.S. appeals court upholds MIT, Harvard patents on CRISPR gene editing”: Jan Wolfe of Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued today.
“U.S. appeals court invalidates Acorda patents on MS drug”: Jan Wolfe of Reuters has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued today.
“Ninth Circuit Revives Fight of Washington Cyberstalking Law”: June Williams of Courthouse News Service has this report.
And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh — who serves as co-counsel for plaintiff-appellant in the case — has a post titled “State Civil Protective Order Doesn’t Preclude Federal Challenge to Criminal Harassment Statute; An interesting new Younger abstention case from the Ninth Circuit, arising in our challenge to Washington’s very broad criminal harassment statute.”
You can access Friday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.
“If Kavanaugh is confirmed, any of these 13 cases could end Roe v. Wade; The landmark abortion decision could be overturned within a year”: Anna North of Vox had this report last Friday.
Today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued this ruling in one of those 13 cases.
Update: In early news coverage, Nate Raymond of Reuters reports that “U.S. appeals court says Missouri can enforce abortion laws.”
“Federal court rules on Matusiewicz cyberstalking appeal”: Xerxes Wilson of The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware has an article that begins, “A federal appeals court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of former Newark optometrist David Matusiewicz and his sister, Amy Gonzalez — a precedential decision that affirms the nation’s first prosecution for cyberstalking resulting in death.”
And Randall Chase of The Associated Press reports that “Court upholds Delaware cyberstalking convictions, life terms.”
You can access Friday’s 77-page ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at this link.
“The Kavanaugh Hearings Are Over. Now What? Democrats did the best they could. Pressuring red-state senators to vote no will backfire.” Michael Tomasky has this essay online at The New York Times.
“Good Behaviour #10: ‘Bad Bens.'” You can access today’s new installment of the “First Mondays” podcast, featuring Ian Samuel and Leah Litman, via this link.
“A Progressive’s Guide to Reclaiming the Constitution: Progressives should not just resist the erosion of important legal gains, but say what they believe the courts should do, and what they believe the Constitution means.” Online at The New York Times, law professor Jedediah Purdy has an essay that begins, “With Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, progressives see a dystopian future: a judicial gavel pounding down for decades on voting rights, workers’ rights, women’s rights and more. But rather than despairing or scheming for 1930s-style court packing, what progressives need most is a constitutional vision of their own, a vivid picture of what judges should do with the power of the courts.”
“Yalies weigh in on Brett Kavanaugh ’87 LAW ’90 at confirmation hearing”: Adelaide Feibel of The Yale Daily News has this report.
“The Deceptive Contrast Between Trump and Kavanaugh: Last week, the impetuous President and the thoughtful Supreme Court nominee seemed very different, but they share an agenda for the country.” Jeffrey Toobin has this Comment in the Talk of the Town section of the September 17, 2018 issue of The New Yorker.
