“Supreme Court Seems Ready to Allow Cross Honoring War Dead”: 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 to seek narrow way to uphold cross that memorializes war dead.”
In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has an article headlined “Supreme Court looks ready to protect Maryland’s ‘Peace Cross’ in church-state case.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court justices search for middle ground in church-state fight over 40-foot Latin cross on state land.”
And Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “High Court Hears Case of Memorial Cross at Traffic Circle; Cross honors local residents who lost their lives serving in the U.S. Armed Forces in World War I.”
You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n, No. 17-1717.
“Justice Thomas working behind the scenes to boost Trump’s court nominee”: Ann E. Marimow and Seung Min Kim of The Washington Post have an article that begins, “Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is working behind the scenes to boost the prospects of his former law clerk, Neomi Rao, to serve on a powerful federal appeals court in Washington — speaking privately with at least two Republican senators as she faces a contentious confirmation fight.”
William Cummings of USA Today reports that “Controversial pick to fill Kavanaugh’s appeals court seat gets Judiciary Committee OK.”
Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Neomi Rao, Kavanaugh replacement pick for appeals court, clears Senate committee.”
Melissa Nann Burke of The Detroit News reports that “Senate panel advances appeals court nominee Rao, a Michigan native.”
Chuck Raasch of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that “Group pulls ad threat after Hawley votes ‘yes’ on controversial Trump judicial nominee.” And in related coverage, Raasch has an article headlined “Hawley’s declarations of independence riling up his party’s right wing.”
Bryan Lowry of McClatchy DC reports that “Hawley, under pressure from right, overcomes qualms about Trump judicial nominee.”
Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Senate panel advances controversial nomination of Neomi Rao.” And Elizabeth Landers of CNN reports that “GOP senator consulted with Clarence Thomas about controversial Trump nominee.”
Andrew O’Reilly of Fox News reports that “Senate panel backs Trump court pick Neomi Rao, as holdout Republicans ease objections.”
Leigh Ann Caldwell of NBC News reports that “Controversial Trump judicial nominee clears Senate Judiciary Committee; The party-line vote came after Neomi Rao met with GOP senators who had raised concerns about her record.”
Jordain Carney of The Hill reports that “Senate panel approves Kavanaugh successor on key appeals court.”
And in commentary, The Wall Street Journal has published an editorial titled “The Right Hurts Its Own: Here’s the back story on Sen. Josh Hawley and nominee Neomi Rao.”
“‘Damaging precedent’: Conservative federal judge installed without consent of home-state senators.” Deanna Paul of The Washington Post has an article that begins, “Seattle attorney Eric Miller was confirmed as a judge on the country’s most liberal appeals court this week without the consent of either home-state senator, a break from tradition that Democrats say Republicans will come to regret.”
Joel Connelly of SeattlePI reports that “McConnell rolls over Murray, Cantwell on Trump court appointment.”
Lisa Mascaro and Gene Johnson of The Associated Press report that “Senate confirms circuit court nominee over Dem objections.”
Gregg Re of Fox News reports that “9th Circuit gets another Trump-picked judge, after White House bypasses consultation with Dems.”
Todd Ruger of Roll Call reports that “Democrats see loss of Senate power in latest judicial vote; Both home-state senators opposed appointment of Eric D. Miller to 9th Circuit.”
And Jordain Carney of The Hill reports that “Senate confirms Trump court pick despite missing two ‘blue slips.’“
“9th Circuit revives Muslims’ lawsuit charging FBI with spying at mosques”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this report.
And Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Court rejects state secrets claim in FBI mosque surveillance suit.”
You can access today’s 103-page ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link. The appeal was argued on December 7, 2015.
“Thanks to Trump, the liberal 9th Circuit is no longer liberal; The president’s recent appointments are tilting the balance of the court toward conservatives”: Attorney Ben Feuer has this essay online at The Washington Post.
“Kavanaugh Ignored Precedent in His Major Abortion Dissent. That’s Part of a Pattern.” Law professor-to-be Nina Varsava has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“U.S. Loses Appeal Seeking to Block AT&T-Time Warner Merger”: Edmund Lee and Cecilia Kang have this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.
In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Brian Fung has an article headlined “Federal appeals court upholds AT&T’s Time Warner merger, handing defeat to Justice Department.”
Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “U.S. Appeals Court Rejects Justice Department Antitrust Challenge to AT&T-Time Warner Deal; Appeals court unanimously affirms trial-judge ruling last year that allowed merger.”
Mike Snider of USA Today reports that “Justice Department loses appeal to block AT&T-Time Warner merger, won’t appeal again.”
Diane Bartz and David Shepardson of Reuters report that “U.S. Justice Department will not appeal AT&T, Time Warner merger after court loss.”
Hadas Gold of CNN Business reports that “Appeals court backs AT&T acquisition of Time Warner.”
Timothy B. Lee of Ars Technica reports that “Appeals court rejects government bid to reverse AT&T/Time Warner deal; The Trump administration argued the deal would raise prices for consumers.”
Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “Appeals court upholds AT&T-Time Warner merger.”
At the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has a post titled “Appeals Court Won’t Stop AT&T-Time Warner Merger; The government fails to convince the DC Circuit that the $85 billion deal would violate antitrust law.”
In commentary, The Wall Street Journal has published an editorial titled “AT&T Wins by Knockout: Even the liberal D.C. Circuit doesn’t buy Justice’s antitrust case.”
And online at Slate, April Glaser has an essay titled “The Government Made the Wrong Argument in Its Failed Challenge to the AT&T–Time Warner Merger.”
You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.
“Sixth Circuit Clears James Woods in Twitter Libel Suit”: Kevin Koeninger of Courthouse News Service has this report on a ruling that a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued today.
“Aide to Roger Stone Must Testify in Russia Case, Appeals Court Rules”: Charlie Savage has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.
Michael Balsamo and Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press report that “Appeals court rejects challenge to Mueller’s appointment.”
Lawrence Hurley and Sarah N. Lynch of Reuters report that “U.S. court rejects Stone aide’s challenge to special counsel Mueller.”
Andrew M Harris of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Appeals Court Rejects Challenge to Mueller’s Authority.”
Katelyn Polantz of CNN reports that “Federal court again rejects challenge to Mueller’s legitimacy.”
Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that “Court rejects challenge to Mueller’s appointment.”
Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “The DC Circuit Ruled That Robert Mueller Was “’roperly Appointed’; The court upheld a civil contempt order against former Roger Stone associate Andrew Miller, who refused to comply with a grand jury subpoena and challenged Mueller’s appointment.”
And Britain Eakin of Courthouse News Service reports that “DC Circuit Rules Mueller Appointment Was Lawful.”
You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.
“Court agrees Bay Area man was fired for whistle-blowing; upholds $8 million verdict”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.
“Register now for Effective Third Circuit Advocacy, featuring Chief Judge Smith and Judge Bibas, 3/6 in Philadelphia”: Matthew Stiegler has this post at his “CA3blog” about a continuing legal education program, which will take place in Philadelphia on Wednesday, March 6, 2019, that I am planning to attend.
“Courts Must Decide How Much ‘Deference’ to Give Trump; The legal term that turned the travel ban case also matters for the border wall and census suits”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.
“Federal Judge Cites RBG, Rules That Men-Only Draft Registration Is Unconstitutional”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
And online at Bloomberg Opinion, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “Drafting Women Into the Military Shouldn’t Be Up to a Judge; There’s a difference between offering combat jobs to female troops and forcing them to serve, and that’s worthy of a real debate in Congress.”
“Supreme Court will look at whether a cross is promotion of religion or war memorial”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.
Jack Fruchtman of The Baltimore Sun reports that “Supreme Court to decide whether a cross can be anything other than religious.”
Ariane de Vogue and Geneva Sands of CNN report that “Supreme Court to decide fate of WWI memorial cross in church and state dispute.”
Shannon Bream and Bill Mears of Fox News report that “‘Peace Cross’ memorial at center of landmark Supreme Court fight over religious displays.”
Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that “Cross-shaped memorial pulls Supreme Court into church-state dispute.”
And in commentary, Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an editorial titled “A Supreme Court Cross-Roads: The Bladensburg cross case tees up the Lemon test for overturning.”
Online at The Washington Post, law professors Nelson Tebbe, Richard C. Schragger, and Micah J. Schwartzman have an essay titled “The Bladensburg Peace Cross sends the message that some citizens are less valued than others; The Supreme Court should embrace the idea that our public institutions belong equally to people of all faiths.”
And online at ABA Journal, law professor Erwin Chemerinsky has an essay titled “Do religious symbols on government property infringe on First Amendment?“
Access today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in an argued case: Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, No. 17-1094. You can access the oral argument via this link.
In news coverage, Barbara Lambert of Courthouse News Service reports that “High Court Clips Class Wings on Suit Over Sex Pills.”
“Supreme Court Weighs Fate of 40-Foot Cross Built as War Memorial”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.
And Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court to decide if giant cross is religious symbol or secular memorial to war dead; The case raises a question that has vexed the justices for decades: What is the proper place for religion in American public life?“
“Appeal challenging bail bond reforms dismissed”: Phaedra Haywood of The Santa Fe New Mexican has this report.
And Victoria Prieskop of Courthouse News Service reports that “Tenth Circuit Tosses New Mexico Bail Reform Challenge.”
You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit at this link.
“FTC loses Shire appeal, losing round in fight against citizen petition abuse”: Diane Bartz of Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued today.
“Progressive activists push 2020 Dems to pack Supreme Court”: Alex Thompson of Politico has this report.
And Paul Steinhauser of Fox News reports that “2020 Dems being urged to back push to pack Supreme Court.“
“Louisiana Supreme Court likely to consider question of split-jury law’s constitutionality”: Gordon Russell of The Advocate of Baton Rouge, Louisiana has an article that begins, “When Louisiana voters jettisoned a 120-year relic of the Jim Crow era by voting in November to require unanimous jury verdicts in serious felony trials, they went where courts have long refused to tread.”
“Supreme Court won’t block smokers’ lawsuits against big tobacco companies”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.
And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Cigarette Makers Rejected by U.S. Supreme Court on Florida Suits.”
“Students are lining up 48 hours ahead of Supreme Court arguments. They can’t say how much they’re being paid.” Tucker Higgins of CNBC has this report.
“In Bladensburg Peace Cross case, Supreme Court’s Elena Kagan could have pivotal role”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.
“Republican senator has concerns about Trump’s DC Circuit Court of Appeals nominee”: Elizabeth Landers and Ariane de Vogue of CNN have this report.
Gregg Re of Fox News reports that “Conservatives defend Trump DC Circuit pick Neomi Rao, after GOP Sen. Hawley raises abortion concerns.”
Chuck Raasch of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that “Hawley facing conservative group’s ad barrage over possible opposition to Trump judicial nominee.”
Gabby Orr of Politico reports that “Conservative group launches ad campaign to save Trump’s D.C. court pick; Neomi Rao’s path to confirmation has become increasingly uncertain due to new concerns over her record on abortion.”
And Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an editorial titled “Josh Hawley’s Bad Judgment: The GOP freshman joins the left in trashing Neomi Rao.”
“The Jail Health-Care Crisis: The opioid epidemic and other public-health emergencies are being aggravated by failings in the criminal-justice system.” Steve Coll has this article in the March 4, 2019 issue of The New Yorker.
“Judges are ‘appointed for life, not for eternity,’ Supreme Court rules”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court overturns 9th Circuit equal-pay decision because of judge’s death.”
Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has an article headlined “‘Appointed for Life, Not for Eternity’: Supreme Court Voids Deceased Judge’s Vote; Federal appeals judge died in 2018 before his authored ruling in a gender-pay case.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court vacates appeals court gender-neutral pay ruling written by a deceased judge.”
Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has an article headlined “Supreme Court: Dead judges can’t issue rulings.”
Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Supreme Court tosses California equal-pay case, saying ruling died with judge.”
Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press has a report headlined “Supreme Court: Judges can’t rule from beyond the grave.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court nixes equal pay ruling due to judge’s death.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Dead Judge’s Vote Shouldn’t Have Counted, Supreme Court Rules.”
Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court rules judges might serve for life, but not eternity; In order for a vote to count, a judge must be actively serving on the court when a ruling is rendered, the Supreme Court said.”
Bill Mears of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court says vote of dead ‘progressive icon’ judge does not count.”
Lydia Wheeler of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court tosses equal pay ruling released after judge’s death.”
Barbara Leonard of Courthouse News Service reports that “Justices Chastise 9th Circuit for Counting Dead Judge in Majority.”
And at the “School Law” blog of Education Week, Mark Walsh has a post titled “Supreme Court Sidesteps Equal Pay Case Involving School Administrator.”
“Amid Record-Breaking Consensus the Justices’ Divisions Still Run Deep”: Adam Feldman has this post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.
Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in one new case.
And in Yovino v. Rizo, No. 18–272, the Court issued a per curiam opinion to address the question “May a federal court count the vote of a judge who dies before the decision is issued?” The Court unanimously answered “no,” with Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurring in the judgment without separate opinion. This outcome is the result that the “How Appealing” blog has been arguing in favor of for quite some time now.
“Abandoning Gold and the Constitution?” Mark Pulliam has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.
“Wither the Establishment Clause: The Bladensburg Cross Case”: Robert W. Tuttle and Ira C. Lupu have this post at the “Take Care” blog.
“Concerns rise over Neomi Rao, Trump’s D.C. Circuit nominee”: Jonathan Swan has this post at Axios.
“The Supreme Court has a chance to clear up decades of confusion”: In today’s edition of The Washington Post, columnist George F. Will has an op-ed that begins, “For decades, the Supreme Court has entangled itself in establishment clause decisions that have been, in the words of Alice in Wonderland, curiouser and curiouser. On Wednesday, it can leaven with clarity the confusion it has sown.”
“Divorced Colorado woman wants Supreme Court to hear frozen embryo custody case”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.
“40-Foot Cross Divides a Community and Prompts a Supreme Court Battle”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
“Judge rules men-only military draft unconstitutional in court win for San Diego men’s group”: Pauline Repard of The San Diego Union-Tribune has this report.
And Gregory Korte of USA Today has an article headlined “With women in combat roles, a federal court rules the male-only draft unconstitutional.”
You can access Friday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas at this link.
