“IU Opens Title IX Investigation Concerning Maurer School Professor”: Barbara Brosher of Indiana Public Media stations WTIU and WFIU of Bloomington, Indiana has an article that begins, “Indiana University has opened a Title IX investigation involving associate professor of law Ian Samuel.”
And Lilly St. Angelo of the Indiana Daily Student reports that “IU opens Title IX investigation on Maurer School of Law professor.”
In a potentially related development, the First Mondays podcast posted this announcement on Twitter this evening.
“My high school’s transgender bathroom policies violate the privacy of the rest of us: Students experiencing gender dysphoria deserve our love and support. But my privacy rights shouldn’t depend on what others believe about their gender.” Alexis Lightcap has this essay online at USA Today.
“Hopi lose arguments on Snowbowl snowmaking in state Supreme Court ruling”: Alden Woods of The Arizona Republic has this report.
Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star reports that “Arizona Supreme Court deals setback to Hopis in Snowbowl effluent dispute.”
And Felicia Fonseca of The Associated Press reports that “High court rules against Hopi Tribe in snowmaking challenge.”
You can access Thursday’s 5-to-2 ruling of the Supreme Court of Arizona at this link.
“SD Supreme Court sides with ex-husband in alienation of affection case”: Christopher Vondracek of The Rapid City (S.D.) Journal has this report on a ruling that the Supreme Court of South Dakota issued on Wednesday.
“Federal Employees Are Warned Not to Discuss Trump ‘Resistance’ at Work”: Charlie Savage has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.
And Eli Rosenberg of The Washington Post has an article headlined “No talk of ‘the Resistance’ or opinions about impeachment at work, federal employees are warned.”
“Supreme Court Seems Ready to Back Owner of Seized Land Rover in Case on Excessive Fines”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.
In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Supreme Court appears ready to say excessive fine prohibition applies to states.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has an article headlined “He lost his $42,000 Land Rover for a $385 crime. The Supreme Court considers whether the constitutional ban on ‘excessive fines’ applies to states.”
In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin has an article headlined “Supreme Court Poised to Rule Against Excessive State Fines; In Timbs v. Indiana, justices hear case of man whose Land Rover was seized after he sold four grams of heroin.”
On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Appears Ready To Make It Harder For States To Confiscate Property.”
In commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor Just Came Out Swinging Against Policing for Profit.”
And online at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “A fascinating divide just opened up between Trump’s Supreme Court appointees and Bush’s: Roberts still has a lingering fear of judicial power; Gorsuch, not so much.”
“Are Civics Lessons a Constitutional Right? This Student Is Suing for Them. Many see the lack of civics in schools as a national crisis. A federal lawsuit says it also violates the law.” Dana Goldstein has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.
And Linda Borg of The Providence (R.I.) Journal reports that “Federal lawsuit says R.I. fails to prepare students to be informed citizens.”
You can view the class action complaint initiating suit at this link.
“Court ruling could force everyday Missourians to register as lobbyists, attorneys say”: Jason Hancock of The Kansas City Star has this article reporting on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued yesterday.
Circuit Judge David R. Stras wrote a dissenting opinion that is worth a look.
“Sen. Tim Scott says he will oppose Trump’s nominee for North Carolina judgeship”: Seung Min Kim and John Wagner of The Washington Post have this report.
Joshua Jamerson and Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal report that “GOP Sen. Scott to Oppose Trump Court Pick, Blocking Nomination; Senator is 51st vote against Thomas Farr, controversial choice for judge in North Carolina.”
Cat Hofacker and Eliza Collins of USA Today report that “GOP Senator Tim Scott opposes Trump’s judicial nominee, ending his chances of confirmation.”
Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Sen. Tim Scott to oppose Trump judicial pick Thomas Farr, dooming nomination.”
Kevin Freking of The Associated Press reports that “GOP senator’s opposition likely sinks Trump judicial nominee.”
Laura Litvan and Steven T. Dennis of Bloomberg News report that “GOP Senator to Block Confirmation of Trump Judicial Nominee.”
Leigh Ann Caldwell and Frank Thorp V of NBC News report that “GOP Sen. Scott opposes Trump judicial nominee Farr, sinking nomination; The South Carolina senator became the second Senate Republican to publicly oppose controversial nominee Thomas Farr.”
Ted Barrett of CNN reports that “Republican senator effectively sinks nomination of controversial judicial pick Thomas Farr.”
Gregg Re of Fox News reports that “Sen. Tim Scott announces opposition to judicial nominee Thomas Farr, effectively dooming confirmation.”
Marianne LeVine and Burgess Everett of Politico report that “Tim Scott sinks Trump judicial nominee; The South Carolina senator opposed Thomas Farr over the nominee’s record on voting rights.”
Jordain Carney of The Hill reports that “GOP senator announces opposition, possibly dooming controversial Trump judicial nominee.”
Niels Lesniewski of Roll Call reports that “Thomas Farr Nomination Likely Sunk After Tim Scott Announces Opposition; Senate had delayed confirmation vote until next week.”
Jennifer Bendery of HuffPost reports that “Republicans Sink Trump Judicial Nominee Hostile To Black Voters’ Rights; Sens. Tim Scott and Jeff Flake joined Democrats in rejecting Thomas Farr to be a lifetime federal judge.”
Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “Republicans Don’t Have Enough Votes To Confirm One Of Trump’s Most Controversial Judicial Nominees.”
At the “Intelligencer” blog of New York Magazine, Ed Kilgore has a post titled “Tim Scott Kills Confirmation of Judge Accused of Vote Suppression.”
And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Kelsey Snell had an audio segment titled “GOP Sen. Tim Scott To Oppose Trump Judicial Nominee.”
“Scott to oppose Farr nomination to federal bench in NC, ending chances of confirmation”: Emma Dumain and Brian Murphy of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina have this report.
“Confirmation vote on Thomas Farr postponed to next week”: Brian Murphy of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina has this report.
And Marianne LeVine of Politico reports that “Senate delays vote on controversial Trump judicial nominee; Several Republicans who voted to advance his nomination are now saying they’re undecided.”
“Attorneys argue case of ‘Serial’ subject Adnan Syed in Maryland’s highest court”: Colin Campbell of The Baltimore Sun has this report.
David McFadden of The Associated Press reports that “Arguments in ‘Serial’ case focus on lawyer, alibi witness.”
And Donna Owens and Gabriella Borter of Reuters report that “‘Serial’ alibi witness posed ‘terrible risk’ to defense, Maryland says.”
You can view the video of today’s oral argument before the Maryland Court of Appeals via this link (or in high-definition via this link). And the documents filed in the case can be accessed via this link.
“The David Rubenstein Show: Anthony Kennedy.” Bloomberg Markets and Finance has posted this video on YouTube.
“The Supreme Court saved Bobby Moore from execution once. It should do it again.” Kenneth W. Starr has this essay online at The Washington Post.
“What The Future Of Abortion Looks Like After The 2018 Midterms: Changes to Congress, state legislatures, and the Supreme Court in 2018 will have a major impact on the future of abortion in the US.” Ema O’Connor of BuzzFeed News has this report.
“Christine Blasey Ford says some good came out of her ‘terrifying’ testimony against Kavanaugh”: Lindsey Bever of The Washington Post has this report.
Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Christine Blasey Ford to donate GoFundMe cash to trauma survivors.”
Jason Green of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “Christine Blasey Ford closes online fundraiser; Palo Alto University professor says unused funds will be donated to trauma survivor support groups.”
Elisha Fieldstadt of NBC News has an article headlined “Christine Blasey Ford: ‘Coming forward was terrifying’ but let her ‘fulfill my civic duty’; She called a GoFundMe account that raised nearly $650,000 for her family’s security a ‘godsend’ and said she will donate unused funds toward helping trauma survivors.”
Kaitlyn Schallhorn of Fox News reports that “Christine Blasey Ford explains use of GoFundMe money in rare public statement.”
Remy Smidt of BuzzFeed News reports that “Christine Blasey Ford Said She Is Donating Extra Money Raised For Her Security To Help Trauma Survivors.”
And Alanna Vagianos of HuffPost has a report headlined “Christine Blasey Ford: ‘I Am Grateful To Have Had The Opportunity To Fulfill My Civic Duty’; The college professor who accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault spoke out in a rare post.”
“Chief Judges Announce Adoption of Workplace Conduct Policies”: The U.S. Courts for the District of Columbia issued this news release today.
“Forfeit a $42,000 Land Rover for a minor drug offense? Supreme Court appears skeptical of state punishments.” Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court likely to apply excessive-fines ban to states.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Land Rover owner in driver’s seat as U.S. justices fault Indiana.”
And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Justices Signal They Will Put Limits on States’ Power to Fine.”
You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Timbs v. Indiana, No. 17-1091.
“The Dusky Gopher Frog Loses a Round in the Supreme Court”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.
In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Supreme Court deals a setback to the endangered dusky gopher frog.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court limits habitats protected under the Endangered Species Act.”
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Orders Review of Agency’s Frog-Habitat Designation; Case revolves around forested Weyerhaeuser property in Louisiana and the endangered dusky gopher frog.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court finds unity in decision against the endandered dusky gopher frog.”
Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court reins in the feds’ land grab for endangered species.”
In today’s edition of The Advocate of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Faimon A. Roberts III has a front page article headlined “In Louisiana dusky gopher frog case, U.S. Supreme Court overturns lower courts.”
Kevin McGill of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court orders new look at case of endangered frog.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Dusky gopher frog suffers setback in U.S. Supreme Court ruling.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Orders New Review in Weyerhaeuser Frog Habitat Case.”
Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Dusky gopher frog suffers setback at Supreme Court.”
Ellen M. Gilmer of Greenwire reports that “Justices punt dusky gopher frog case to lower court.”
And in commentary, today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal contains an editorial titled “Endangered Species Habitat Check: The Supreme Court rules 8-0 against a federal land grab for the dusky gopher frog.”
“Lack of Standing Dooms Suit to Block California Assisted-Suicide Law”: William Dotinga of Courthouse News Service has this report on a ruling that a partially divided three-judge panel of California’s Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District issued yesterday.
“The Strength of Precedent is in the Justices’ Actions, Not Words”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.
“Can There Be a Citizenship Question on the 2020 Census? A Judge Will Soon Rule.” Michael Wines has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.
And Nick Brown of Reuters reports that “Quick ruling expected as U.S. census trial wraps up.”
“Supreme Court Hears Murder Case Involving Muscogee Creek Nation Land”: This audio segment appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”
“He sold drugs and the police seized his car. Does the Constitution provide protection?” Robert Barnes has this article in today’s edition of The Washington Post.
And on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court To Take Up Ban On Excessive Fines.”
“Democrats Try to Derail Judicial Nominee They Call a Vote Suppressor”: Catie Edmondson has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.
Seung Min Kim and John Wagner of The Washington Post report that “Fate of divisive judicial nominee from North Carolina uncertain amid criticism.”
Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has an article headlined “Schumer begs Senate to defeat Trump judicial nominee: ‘How can you have this man in the court?’”
Brian Murphy of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina reports that “After bitter debate, Thomas Farr nomination scheduled for vote Wednesday.”
Emma Dumain of McClatchy DC has an article headlined “Will Tim Scott oppose a judicial pick accused of disenfranchising black voters?”
From CNN, Veronica Stracqualursi reports that “Stacey Abrams, Andrew Gillum call on Senate to reject Trump federal judge nominee.” And in related news, Manu Raju and Ted Barrett report that “Senate GOP leaders may allow Mueller protection bill to come up for a vote.”
Marianne LeVine and Burgess Everett of Politico report that “Trump judicial pick is one defection away from failure.”
Todd Ruger of Roll Call reports that “Racial Concerns Fuel Opposition to Judicial Nominee; Thomas Farr under scrutiny for issues traced back to North Carolina politics.”
Jordain Carney of The Hill has a report headlined “Schumer blasts Trump judicial pick: Farr’s ‘one of the worst.’”
In commentary, online at Mother Jones, Ari Berman has an essay titled “Senate Set to Vote on Lifetime Judgeship for Defender of Voter Suppression Laws; Thomas Farr repeatedly defended efforts to make it harder for people of color to vote.”
And online at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “One of the Republican Party’s worst vote suppressors is about to become a federal judge; Republicans appear to have the votes to confirm one of the architects of America’s worst voter suppression law.”
“Supreme Court poised to drastically reverse LGBTQ equality; It could be a disastrous year for LGBTQ rights”: Zack Ford of ThinkProgress has this essay.
“What we should take away from the Trump-Roberts kerfuffle”: Columnist Charles Lane has this essay online at The Washington Post.
“Controversial Trump judicial nominee in peril of Senate defeat; Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., is blocking all nominees, including Farr’s, until Republican leaders take up a bill protecting special counsel Robert Mueller”: Leigh Ann Caldwell and Frank Thorp V of NBC News have this report.
And Igor Bobic and Jennifer Bendery of HuffPost report that “Democrats Only Need 1 More GOP Vote To Sink A Controversial Judicial Nominee; They’re eyeing Sens. Tim Scott of South Carolina and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska to help them tank Thomas Farr’s nomination.”
“Trump Misjudges America’s Courts: His attack on a federal judge revealed his own ignorance of the U.S. legal system.” Columnist William A. Galston will have this op-ed in Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.
“Brett Kavanaugh worried that scandal would end his coaching days. Now the Supreme Court justice is back on the basketball court.” Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this report.
“Is Half of Oklahoma an Indian Reservation? The Supreme Court Sifts the Merits.” Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Revisits Westward Expansion; Justices consider a Creek Indian’s claim that he has the right to a federal trial based on tribal sovereignty.”
Justin Wingerter of The Oklahoman reports that “U.S. Supreme Court justices skeptical of state’s claims in Creek reservation case but concerned about outcomes.”
Curtis Killman of The Tulsa World reports that “Life, tribal sovereignty at forefront of Oklahoma case before U.S. Supreme Court.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices debate Indian control of land in Oklahoma.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices wrestle with Oklahoma tribal sovereignty dispute.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Weighs Stripping Oklahoma Authority in Indian Territory.”
And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court: Should Eastern Oklahoma Be Considered An Indian Reservation?”
You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Carpenter v. Murphy, No. 17-1107.
“North Carolina Judicial Nominee Faces Confirmation Battle; Opponents of Thomas Farr say he has defended racially discriminatory laws, while supporters say he is well qualified”: Natalie Andrews and Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal have this report.
“What can states seize? SCOTUS will decide whether the excessive fines clause applies to states.” Mark Walsh has this article in the December 2018 issue of ABA Journal magazine.
The December issue also contains that magazine’s annual Web 100.
Access the November 2018 issue of The Circuit Rider, the journal of the Seventh Circuit Bar Association: At this link. Don’t miss the essay by Kathy Agonis titled “Steve Shapiro’s Legacy in the Courtroom and Beyond.”
“New York top court: Jury trials needed when deportation a risk.” Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has this report.
And Nick Rummell of Courthouse News Service reports that “Minor but Deportable Offenses Warrant Jury Trials, NY Court Rules.”
You can access today’s 5-to-2 ruling of the New York State Court of Appeals at this link.
