How Appealing



Saturday, April 13, 2019

“Death and the Shadow Docket: The Supreme Court’s efforts to shift procedures in death penalty litigation.” Will Baude has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” a blog that now features a new design.

Posted at 10:48 PM by Howard Bashman



Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt may be dead, but votes he cast in cases that remained undecided when he died live on: Friday marked the second day in a row in which the unfriendly skies resulted in a Ninth Circuit decision. (My earlier coverage of Thursday’s ruling can be accessed here.)

In the ruling that issued on Friday, Reinhardt’s vote did not actually count, because he had been replaced on the three-judge panel by another judge. But that did not prevent one member of the three-judge panel, Senior Circuit Judge Ronald Lee Gilman visiting from the Sixth Circuit, from writing toward the start of his 20-page separate opinion:

Prior to his death in March 2018, Judge Stephen Reinhardt was a member of this panel and prepared a draft opinion holding that the “knowingly” mens rea requirement contained in 18 U.S.C. §2244(b) should be applied to each element of the offense, including that the sexual contact be without the other person’s permission. Unabashedly, much of this concurrence can be attributed to the portions of Judge Reinhardt’s draft opinion with which I fully agree.

Although Gilman’s opinion can be read as giving credit where credit is due, the effect of this passage is to note that the position Judge Gilman advocates would have attained a majority had Reinhardt not unexpectedly passed away when he did.

The disagreement between the current majority and Gilman on this issue is itself very interesting, but I just wanted to flag this noteworthy aspect of Gilman’s separate opinion.

Posted at 11:35 AM by Howard Bashman



11-judge Ninth Circuit en banc panel issues unpublished, non-precedential decision with many judges writing separately reversing entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants based on qualified immunity: It’s not every day that a case is important enough to receive en banc review and yet the en banc court’s ruling issues in the form of an unpublished, non-precedential ruling. But it happened on April 3, 2019 in the Ninth Circuit. Thanks to a reader for sending along the link to this ruling.

Posted at 11:18 AM by Howard Bashman



“Court paves way for FEC to reveal anonymous $1.7 million super PAC donor; The case involves a donation to a super PAC in 2012 that was routed through a LLC and a conservative advocacy group”: Maggie Severns of Politico has this report.

And Kate Ackley of Roll Call reports that “This mysterious 2012 super PAC donor may finally be revealed; The case dates to a $1.71 million donation to a super PAC supporting Missouri candidate Todd Akin.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.

Posted at 10:40 AM by Howard Bashman



“He wants to trademark a brand name that sounds like the F-word. The Supreme Court is listening.” Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “Fashion brand ‘FUCT’ seeks trademark help from Supreme Court.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters has a report headlined “F-words and T-shirts: U.S. Supreme Court weighs foul language trademarks.”

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Clothing Line’s Vulgar Name Tests Supreme Court on Trademark Rights.”

Posted at 10:24 AM by Howard Bashman



“‘You can hear the Klan’s lawyers’: Federal judge likens Trump’s attacks on judiciary to KKK.” Reis Thebault of The Washington Post has this report.

Alex Swoyer and Bailey Vogt of The Washington Times report that “Federal judge compares Trump to KKK, says president engaged in ‘great assault on our judiciary’; ‘They are words of an attacker, seeking to distort and twist that search toward falsehood.’

In today’s edition of The Clarion Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi, Jimmie E. Gates has a front page article headlined “Mississippi Judge Carlton Reeves likens Trump attack on judiciary to KKK, Citizens Council.” Earlier, Gates had a related article headlined “He’s ruled on some of Mississippi’s biggest cases. Now, Judge Carlton Reeves is a Thomas Jefferson law honoree.”

Ariane de Vogue and Veronica Stracqualursi of CNN report that “Federal judge rebukes Trump attacks on courts, compares to segregationist era.”

John Bowden of The Hill reports that “Federal judge tears into Trump’s criticism of judiciary.”

Sarah Ruiz-Grossman of HuffPost reports that “Federal Judge Compares Trump’s Attacks On Courts To KKK And Segregationists; ‘When politicians attack courts as “dangerous,” “political” . . . you can hear the Klan’s lawyers, assailing officers of the court across the South,’ said U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves.”

Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News reports that “A Federal Judge Compared Trump’s Criticism Of The Courts To The KKK And Segregationists; ‘We are now eyewitnesses to the third great assault on our judiciary,’ Judge Carlton Reeves said in a speech on Thursday.”

Eric Williamson of the University of Virginia School of Law reports that “Jefferson Medalist Calls for Defense of Judiciary; U.S. Judge Carlton W. Reeves ’89 Says Justice Under Attack.”

In commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “Federal Judge: Donald Trump Is Leading an ‘Assault on Our Judiciary.’” Slate has posted online at this link the prepared text of the judge’s speech.

And the University of Virginia School of Law has posted on YouTube at this link the video of the speech that U.S. District Judge Carlton W. Reeves (S.D. Miss.) delivered on Thursday.

Posted at 10:12 AM by Howard Bashman