“On Whom Are Nonprecedential Appellate Court Opinions Binding?” Now that the Superior Court of Pennsylvania earlier this month finally began allowing advocates to cite to its non-precedential rulings for their persuasive value, I figured it was an opportune time to pose and answer this question, which is what I have done in this month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column appearing in tomorrow’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.
“Outgoing Harvard faculty dean to leave Harvey Weinstein defense team”: Stephanie Ebbert of The Boston Globe has an article that begins, “Harvard Law Professor Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. resigned from the legal team defending Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein against rape and sexual assault charges before Harvard announced Saturday he would not be reappointed as a faculty dean.”
“Tempers Fraying, Justices Continue Debate on Executions”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
“Death penalty tensions flare again on divided U.S. Supreme Court”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.
And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has a report headlined “Weeks Later, Supreme Court Still at Odds on Buddhist Execution Case.”
“Maurer School of Law professor resigns following Title IX investigation”: Emily Isaacman of the Indiana Digital Student has this report.
“California wins in Supreme Court after 28-year fight with inventor”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court’s conservatives overturn precedent as liberals ask ‘which cases the court will overrule next.’”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court says 1 state can’t be sued in another’s courts.”
Jacqueline Thomsen of The Hill reports that “Conservative Supreme Court reverses earlier decision on sovereign immunity.”
And Tierney Sneed of TPM has a report headlined “With Abortion Cases On Horizon, Breyer Warns Of SCOTUS Eagerness To Overturn Precedent.”
“Strict state anti-abortion laws aimed at Supreme Court, justices not eager to consider them”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.
“Supreme Court Allows Antitrust Suit Against Apple to Proceed”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Tony Romm and Robert Barnes of The Washington Post report that “Supreme Court rules against Apple, allowing lawsuit targeting App Store to proceed.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rules Apple can face antitrust suits from iPhone owners over App Store sales.”
Brent Kendall and Tripp Mickle of The Wall Street Journal report that “Apple Loses Bid to End App Antitrust Case in Supreme Court; Lawsuit challenges tech giant’s exclusive control over the marketplace for iPhone apps.”
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court says iPhone users can sue Apple for excessive prices on its App Store.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court allows consumers antitrust suit against Apple.”
Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court lets App Store antitrust suit proceed against Apple.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Apple Loses at U.S. Supreme Court on iPhone App Antitrust Suit.”
Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court says Apple customers can sue over App Store monopoly claims; In a 5-4 decision, the high court allowed a class action lawsuit brought by iPhone users to move forward.”
David Goldman and Brian Fung of CNN Business report that “IPhone owners can sue Apple for monopolizing App Store, Supreme Court rules.”
Ronn Blitzer of Fox News reports that “Kavanaugh sides with liberal justices against Apple, deals blow to tech giant in App Store challenge.”
Jacqueline Thomsen and Harper Neidig of The Hill report that “Supreme Court rules iPhone users can sue Apple over App Store prices.”
Joseph Bernstein of BuzzFeed News reports that “Supreme Court Says Consumers Can Sue Apple For Allegedly Monopolizing The App Store.”
At the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner had a post titled “How Apple’s Loss at Supreme Court Could Impact Entertainment.”
And in commentary, online at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “Surprise! Kavanaugh joins liberal justices in 5-4 decision; Well, at least he’s not Gorsuch.”
“Nominee for state Appellate Court, hitman share moment at library; Public hearing on nomination scheduled for 1 p.m. Monday”: Andy Thibault of The Republican-American of Waterbury, Connecticut has this report.
“Swan Song of a Great Colossus: The Latest from Richard Posner.” Stephen Presser has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.
Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued rulings in three argued cases.
1. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court in Apple, Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
2. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court in Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, No. 17-1299. Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
And Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt, No. 18-315. You can access the oral argument via this link.
Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases.
In Price v. Dunn, No. 18-1249, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurrence, in which Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch joined, in the denial of certiorari.
In Dahne v. Richey, No. 18-761, Justice Alito issued a dissent, in which Justices Thomas and Brett M. Kavanaugh joined, from the denial of certiorari.
In Myers v. United States, No. 18–6859, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. issued a dissent, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh joined, from the Court’s issuance of a GVR “in light of the position asserted by the Solicitor General in his brief.”
And in Abdur’Rahman v. Parker, No. 18–8332, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissent from the denial of certiorari.
“Accused of ‘Terrorism’ for Putting Legal Materials Online”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.
“Trump Is Stuck With Nationwide Court Injunctions; The Supreme Court is unlikely to step in to stop the use of this powerful judicial tool because that would give the justices more work”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.
“Justice Neil Gorsuch makes waves during second term on Supreme Court”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.
“Trump’s Justices, With Much in Common, Take Different Paths”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
“Anti-abortion bills mount as GOP-led states angle for Supreme Court fight over Roe v. Wade; The extremity of the proposals represents a shift in strategy, one abortion rights advocate said”: Dartunorro Clark of NBC News has this report.
“Remembering Federal Judge Damon Keith”: This audio segment appeared on yesterday’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”
“Conservative states enact abortion bans in hope of overturning Roe vs. Wade”: Jenny Jarvie has this article in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.
“Bitter Supreme Court confirmation battles began 50 years ago over Abe Fortas”: Michael Bobelian has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times.
Bobelian’s new book — “Battle for the Marble Palace: Abe Fortas, Earl Warren, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and the Forging of the Modern Supreme Court” — has an official publication date of May 29, 2019.
“Georgia’s Terrible Law Doesn’t Have to Be the Future of Abortion; A self-induced abortion with misoprostol can be a safe, reliable way to end an unwanted pregnancy”: Cari Sietstra will have this essay in the Sunday Review section of tomorrow’s edition of The New York Times.
“Police can’t rummage through your curbside garbage without warrant, Oregon Supreme Court says”: Aimee Green of The Oregonian has an article that begins, “The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday disagreed with more than 50 years of state case law by ruling that Oregonians retain a privacy interest in the garbage they leave on the curb for pick-up — and that means police can’t simply rummage through it even after a truck hauls it away.”
And Nigel Jaquiss of Willamette Week has an article headlined “An Oregon Supreme Court Ruling on Police Seizure of Suspects’ Garbage Invokes an Infamous WW Cover Story.”
You can access Thursday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Oregon at this link.
“John Paul Stevens looks back on nearly a century of life and law, but worries about the future”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.
“A Ginsburg Tapes Mashup”: This month’s installment of “The Ginsburg Tapes” podcast with Lauren Moxley can be accessed here.
“A Judge, on Judging: Federal Judge Robert Lasnik of the Western District of Washington on judicial self-governance, racial fairness in the courts, and . . . quoting Bob Dylan.” Slate has posted online this new installment of its “Amicus” podcast featuring Dahlia Lithwick.
“Harvard Drops Harvey Weinstein Lawyer as a Faculty Dean”: Kate Taylor of The New York Times has this report.
And Stephanie Ebbert of The Boston Globe reports that “Harvard not renewing Harvey Weinstein lawyer as dean.”
“Court rules Kelly can’t withdraw nomination of judge who sent partisan tweets”: Jason Hancock and Bryan Lowry of The Kansas City Star have an article that begins, “The Kansas Senate will have to return to Topeka next week to vote down Gov. Laura Kelly’s controversial choice for an open seat on the state Court of Appeals, after the Kansas Supreme Court ruled Friday his nomination could not be withdrawn.”
And Jon Parton of Courthouse News Service reports that “Kansas Supreme Court Rules Gov. Can’t Withdraw Judicial Nominee.”
You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Kansas at this link.
“Winthrop Faculty Deans to Leave After Harvard Refuses to Renew Their Appointments”: Shera S. Avi-Yonah of The Harvard Crimson has an article that begins, “Dean of the College Rakesh Khurana announced that Winthrop Faculty Deans Ronald S. Sullivan, Jr. and Stephanie R. Robinson will end their term on June 30 in an email to House affiliates Saturday morning.”
“The Mueller Report’s Weak Statutory Interpretation Analysis”: Jack Goldsmith has this post at the “Lawfare” blog.
“GOP lawmakers ask Supreme Court to halt gerrymandering order”: Melissa Nann Burke of The Detroit News has this report.
And in today’s edition of The Cleveland Plain Dealer, Rich Exner has a front page article headlined “Ohio asks U.S. Supreme Court to block court order that ruled the state’s congressional map unconstitutional.”
“After a Title IX Investigation, This Professor Did Something Unusual: He Owned Up to His Misconduct.” Sarah Brown of the Chronicle of Higher Education has an article (subscription required for full access) that begins, “An Indiana University professor who recently faced a Title IX investigation posted a remorseful resignation letter online on Friday — a rare display of public confession in academe’s #MeToo era.”
Update: You can freely access the full text of this article via this link.
“William Barr is Trump’s Roy Cohn, But Are Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh His Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun, and Lewis Powell?” Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”
“Retired Supreme Court Justice: Trump ‘exercising powers that do not really belong to him.'” Caroline Kelly of CNN has this report.
“Indiana Law Prof Ian Samuel Resigns After Misconduct Probe; ‘I lost — through my own grievous fault — the straightforward path, my sense of right and wrong. It behooves me now to take another road,’ the former Supreme Court clerk said in a letter posted Friday.” Tony Mauro of the National Law Journal has this report.
“Ex-‘First Mondays’ Host Ian Samuel Resigns from Law School”: Melissa Heelan Stanzione of Bloomberg Law has this report.
