“Cyntoia Brown can be released after serving 51 years in prison, Tennessee Supreme Court decides”: Natalie Neysa Alund and Adam Tamburin of The Tennessean have this report.
Dakin Andone of CNN reports that “Cyntoia Brown must serve 51 years before she’s eligible for release, Tennessee Supreme Court says.”
And Aris Folley of The Hill reports that “Tennessee Supreme Court rules Cyntoia Brown must serve 51 years in prison before she’s eligible for release.”
Yesterday’s unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court of Tennessee issued on certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
“The Man Who Made the Supreme Court Supreme”: In this upcoming Sunday’s issue of The New York Times Sunday Book Review, Jeffrey Rosen will have this review of Richard Brookhiser’s new book, “John Marshall: The Man Who Made the Supreme Court.”
“Two Top Conservative Judges Offer Plan to End Discovery for Most Litigants”: Terri Gerstein has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“D.C. Circuit Review — Reviewed: O Christmas Tree!” Aaron Nielson has this post at the “Notice & Comment” blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation.
“Appellate Court vacancies may be scarce in coming years, limiting Trump’s impact”: Russell Wheeler has this post at the “FixGov” blog of The Brookings Institution.
“Is Justice Kavanaugh Grievously Wrong on Stare Decisis?” John O. McGinnis has this post at the “Law and Liberty” blog.
“Only the Best Candidates for Federal Courts; We should stop bringing candidates with questionable track records on race before the full Senate for a vote”: U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) has this letter to the editor in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.
“Impose Boundaries on Immigration Law: Inconsistent rulings by circuit courts, especially the Ninth, have created chaos; Here’s a solution.” Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.
“Supreme Court’s Double Jeopardy Case May Have Implications for Trump Associates”: 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 seems reluctant to prohibit state and federal prosecutions of same crime.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court likely to keep rule that allowed separate state and federal trials in Rodney King case.”
In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin has an article headlined “Supreme Court Wary of Double Jeopardy Claim; The top U.S. court appeared ready to affirm that federal and state authorities can separately try people for the same acts.”
In today’s edition of USA Today, Richard Wolf has a front page articel headlined “Supreme Court justices defend ‘double jeopardy’ exception that allows federal and state prosecutions.”
Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Justices seem hesitant to bar feds, state from prosecuting individual for same crime.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court seems likely to keep double jeopardy exception.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Hears Case With Implications for Trump Pardon Power.”
Pete Williams of NBC News has a report headlined “In potential blow to Manafort, Supreme Court unlikely to change double jeopardy rule.”
Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court double jeopardy case could impact presidential pardon power.”
Bill Mears of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court’s double-jeopardy case holds Mueller probe implications; Kavanaugh vote key.”
Yesterday evening’s broadcast of PBS NewsHour contained a segment titled “Could Supreme Court’s double jeopardy case reverse 170 years of precedent?” featuring Marcia Coyle.
Matt Ford of The New Republic has a report headlined “The Supreme Court’s Double-Jeopardy Dilemma: Does it help or harm justice when state and federal governments can separately prosecute a defendant for the same crime?”
Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that “Justices seem reluctant to make changes to double jeopardy clause.”
Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “The Supreme Court Is Wrestling With Whether States And Feds Can Prosecute A Person For The Same Crime; The case challenges the longstanding rule that separate state and federal prosecutions do not violate the Constitution’s ban on double jeopardy.”
Tim Ryan of Courthouse News Service reports that “Closely Watched Double-Jeopardy Challenge Stumbles at High Court.”
On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Double Jeopardy Case Heard By Supreme Court Could Have Implications For Mueller.”
In commentary, online at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The Supreme Court spent its morning smacking around a lawyer for pandering to Gorsuch; Turns out, no one gives a damn about originalism.”
And online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “Ginsburg and Gorsuch Demolished a Terrible Double Jeopardy Loophole, but SCOTUS Looks Poised to Uphold It.”