How Appealing

Friday, March 29, 2019

“The next City Council will decide if city should fight for topless ban at Supreme Court”: Nick Coltrain of The Fort Collins Coloradoan has an article that begins, “It will be up to the next Fort Collins City Council whether to pursue a U.S. Supreme Court review of the city’s ban on topless women in public.”

My earlier coverage of the Tenth Circuit’s ruling can be accessed here.

Posted at 4:53 PM by Howard Bashman

“How Appealing” gets results . . . eventually: A reader emails:

A few weeks ago, you blogged about Justice Breyer’s opinion in Washington State v. Cougar Den being mislabeled as the opinion of the court. I too was surprised by the apparent error, and even more surprised that the Court hadn’t corrected it by the end of the day. So, I called the Reporter of Decisions at the Supreme Court yesterday, who confirmed that the opinion had indeed been mislabeled. Apparently he hadn’t heard of the mistake from anyone else. The corrected opinion has now been posted here.

My original post noting the error can be accessed here.

Thanks so very much to the reader in question for achieving this correction and for letting me know.

Posted at 4:22 PM by Howard Bashman

“Ruth Bader Ginsburg beer? Guilty, says Sam Adams, giving new meaning to ‘bar exam.'” Zlati Meyer of USA Today has this report.

Posted at 4:12 PM by Howard Bashman

“U.S. Supreme Court to hear appeal in Troy ballot-fraud lawsuit”: Kenneth C. Crowe II of The Times Union of Albany, New York has this report.

Posted at 9:56 AM by Howard Bashman

Sixth Circuit judges tangle over when to certify state-law questions to state supreme courts: Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued this order, accompanied by opinions concurring in, dissenting from, and respecting that court’s denial of rehearing en banc.

As the opinions dissenting from and respecting the denial of rehearing en banc demonstrate, the Sixth Circuit’s Trump appointees appear to have distinct views on this subject.

Posted at 9:50 AM by Howard Bashman

“2 California Supreme Court justices say the state’s death penalty system doesn’t work”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “California Supreme Court justices question state’s death penalty.”

Sudhin Thanawala of The Associated Press reports that “California justice calls death penalty system dysfunctional.”

Steve Gorman of Reuters reports that “Two California Supreme Court justices decry death penalty as ‘dysfunctional.’

And at the “At the Lectern” blog, David Ettinger has a post titled “Supreme Court affirms death penalty for murder of elderly couple; concurrence criticizes California’s death penalty system.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of California at this link, and you can access directly the concurring opinion of Justice Goodwin Liu by clicking here.

Posted at 9:40 AM by Howard Bashman

“Trump Heads to an Obamacare Rematch With John Roberts: The chief justice saved the Affordable Care Act once; Why would a new case make him change his mind?” Ramesh Ponnuru has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.

Online at The New York Times, law professor Nicholas Bagley has an essay titled “Why Trump’s New Push to Kill Obamacare Is So Alarming: It’s not just the potential damage to the health care system and the people who depend on it; It’s also the threat, in the administration’s legal logic, to the rule of law.”

And in related news coverage, in yesterday’s edition of The New York Times, Maggie Haberman and Robert Pear had a front page article headlined “Trump Sided With Mulvaney in Push to Nullify Health Law.”

Posted at 9:22 AM by Howard Bashman