“Curtis Flowers freed on bond for the first time in more than two decades, six trials”: Alissa Zhu of The Clarion Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi has this report.
Rick Rojas of The New York Times reports that “After 6 Murder Trials and 23 Years, Curtis Flowers Is Granted Bail; Mr. Flowers was freed for the first time in more than two decades as prosecutors decide whether to try the quadruple-murder case against him for a seventh time.”
Hannah Knowles and Derek Hawkins of The Washington Post report that “After 6 trials over the same killings, Curtis Flowers can await a possible 7th from home.”
Eliott C. McLaughlin and Tina Burnside of CNN report that “Mississippi judge grants Curtis Flowers bail after six trials end in mistrial or overturned convictions.”
Bradford Betz of Fox News reports that “Mississippi man tried 6 times in killings granted bond after 22 years.”
And Dan Mangan of CNBC reports that “Curtis Flowers — black man tried six times for same murders — released on bail after Supreme Court reversed case detailed in podcast.”
“Supreme Court Won’t Revive Law Barring Homeless People From Sleeping Outdoors; Scores of states, counties and cities had urged the court to hear an appeal over whether such laws are unconstitutional”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court won’t review decision that protects homeless from tickets.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court lets stand ruling that protects homeless people who sleep on sidewalk.” Erika D. Smith of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court decision on homeless case is a blow to cities wanting more policing powers.” And Benjamin Oreskes of The Los Angeles Times has an article headlined “Supreme Court leaves cities with only one option on homelessness: Build more housing.”
Richard Wolf and Chris Woodyard of USA Today report that “Supreme Court refuses to consider cities’ efforts to prosecute the homeless for sleeping outside.”
Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court rejects challenge over city ban on homeless camps.”
Haley Harding of The Idaho Statesman reports that “U.S. Supreme Court will not take up Boise’s controversial homeless camping case.”
Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court leaves in place ruling barring prosecution of homeless.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Refuses to Revive City’s Outdoor-Sleeping Ban.”
Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court won’t disturb ruling against anti-homeless law; By refusing to hear the case, the court leaves in place a lower court ruling that said Idaho’s camping ban violated the Constitution.”
Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court won’t revive law allowing Boise to ticket homeless who sleep on sidewalks.”
Andrew O’Reilly of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to ruling that allows homeless to sleep on sidewalks.”
Anagha Srikanth of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court upholds homeless right to sleep in public places; The court refused to review a lower court ruling against Boise’s law against sleeping or camping in public.”
Tim Ryan of Courthouse News Service reports that “Unconstitutional Ban on Homeless Camping Won’t Face High Court.”
On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Kirk Siegler had an audio segment titled “Court Ruling Limits What Cities In Western U.S. Can Do To Address Homelessness.”
Madelyn Beck of Boise State Public Radio reports that “SCOTUS Rejects Hearing Boise Homeless Case.”
And in commentary, The San Diego Union-Tribune has published an editorial titled “Supreme Court decision in Boise homeless case means sleeping on sidewalk officially a way of life.”
“Oklahoma Supreme Court ‘mistaken’ to hear challenges to abortion restrictions, attorney general says”: Chris Casteel of The Oklahoman has an article that begins, “The Oklahoma Supreme Court should stop ruling on lawsuits about abortion restrictions because the state constitution doesn’t recognize a right to abortion, the Oklahoma attorney general argued last week to the state’s justices.”
DeRay Mckesson received some good news today from the Fifth Circuit — one of the judges on the original three-judge panel that unanimously ruled against him has changed his vote: Circuit Judge Don R. Willett issued this opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part today. The new majority opinion also responds at length to Judge Willett’s separate writing.
“Transgender plaintiff asks 5th Circuit to review Trump appointee’s refusal to recuse”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.
“Five Minutes Fifth @RMFifthCircuit”: Raffi Melkonian offered to produce a weekly Fifth Circuit-related newsletter if people responded that they would be interested in reading that. People were interested, and now Raffi has delivered his first installment.
“Where Is the Fifth Circuit’s Opinion in the Texas ACA Case? Oral argument was in July, so why hasn’t the court issued an opinion yet?” Jonathan H. Adler has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
“Not Afraid of Garland”: You can access online at this link today’s new installment of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast featuring law professor Melissa Murray and Jaime Santos.
Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases.
“Mississippi vows further appeal after loss on abortion ban”: Jeff Amy of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Mississippi’s outgoing governor vowed Saturday to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Mississippi’s ban on abortion at 15 weeks.”
“Punished for Sleeping on the Streets, They Now Await the Supreme Court; The court may take up the question of whether cities can prosecute people for sleeping outdoors when there is no shelter available; Meet the plaintiffs who launched the case in Boise, Idaho”: Mike Baker of The New York Times has this report.
“Court sides with Colorado supermax prison in censorship case”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court in Denver has ruled that officials at a supermax prison in Colorado sufficiently changed their policies and corrected their mistakes after refusing to distribute a magazine that provides legal information to inmates.”
You can access Friday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit at this link.
“Federal appeals court upholds dismissal of Birmingham minimum wage suit”: Howard Koplowitz of Alabama Media Group has this report.
Kim Chandler of The Associated Press reports that “Court says workers can’t sue over blocked minimum wage boost.”
And Izzy Kapnick of Courthouse News Service reports that “Full 11th Circuit Tosses Fight Over Alabama Wage Limits.”
You can access Friday’s 7-to-5 en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit at this link.
“Candidates declare for two 2020 Ohio Supreme Court races, with control of the court on the line”: Jeremy Pelzer of The Cleveland Plain Dealer has this report.
“U.S. Supreme Court accepts new Oklahoma case about Indian reservations”: Chris Casteel of The Oklahoman has this report.
“Legislature might bump up Michigan Supreme Court pay”: Craig Mauger of The Detroit News has this report.
“Democrats running for president need a plan for the Supreme Court”: Former U.S. Senator Harry Reid has this essay online at The Salt Lake Tribune.
“Barr Is Trying to Erase the Truth; He’s smearing the Russia investigation and covering up Trump’s guilt”: William Saletan has this essay online at Slate.
“Don’t Let the First Amendment Forget DeRay Mckesson; An activist is on trial for being an activist, and the Supreme Court needs to protect anti-police protesters”: Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.
And in related news coverage, Marissa J. Lang of The Washington Post reports that “A police officer sued a Black Lives Matter protester for violence he didn’t commit. What’s next has free-speech advocates worried.”
Earlier this month, the ACLU issued a news release titled “ACLU, DeRay Mckesson Urge Supreme Court to Defend First Amendment Right to Protest; Lower Court Ruling, If Left Standing, Would Gut Civil Rights Era Speech Protections.” You can access the petition for writ of certiorari at this link.
“Supreme Court to Rule on Whether Much of Oklahoma Is an Indian Reservation; The court was poised to decide the question in its last term but appeared to have deadlocked”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.
Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court to decide Native American land dispute in Oklahoma.”
And Harrison Grimwood of The Tulsa World reports that “U.S. Supreme Court to hear Seminole tribal member’s challenge to state jurisdiction in Indian Country.”
“Mississippi 15-week abortion ban is blocked by appeals court”: Emily Wagster Pettus of The Associated Press has this report.
Caroline Kelly of CNN reports that “Court strikes down Mississippi 15-week abortion ban.”
And Tal Axelrod of The Hill reports that “Federal appeals court blocks Mississippi 15-week abortion ban, calls it unconstitutional.”
Senior Circuit Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham wrote the majority opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. And Circuit Judge James C. Ho issued an opinion concurring in the judgment.
“Supreme Court to Rule on Release of Trump’s Financial Records; The court’s ruling, expected by June, could release information the president has tried to protect. Or the justices could rule that his financial affairs are not legitimate subjects of inquiry so long as he remains in office”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court will take up Trump’s broad claims of protection from investigation.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court to decide whether Trump’s tax returns must be released to House.”
Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court to Decide Cases on Access to Trump’s Financial Records; A decision, likely next June, could have lasting implications for the presidency.”
Richard Wolf and Kevin McCoy of USA Today report that “Supreme Court agrees to review Trump’s efforts to keep his tax returns, financial records secret.”
Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court to take up cases concerning Trump’s financial records.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices to take up dispute over subpoenas for Trump records.”
Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “U.S. Supreme Court takes up Trump bid to shield financial records.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Trump Gets High Court Review on Financial Records Subpoenas.”
Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court to rule on release of Trump tax records; By granting review of these cases now, the justices made it possible for them to be heard during the current court term.”
Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court to hear Trump pleas to block subpoenas for financial records.” And Joan Biskupic of CNN reports that “The Supreme Court just jumped into the political deep end with Trump taxes lawsuit.”
Bill Mears and Shannon Bream of Fox News report that “Supreme Court to decide fate of subpoenas for Trump financial records.”
Tucker Higgins of CNBC reports that “Supreme Court will hear three cases over Trump’s financial records.”
Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Supreme Court to hear three cases seeking access to Trump’s financial and tax records; The justices are likely to rule on the cases by June.”
Todd Ruger of Roll Call reports that “Justices decide to wade into separation-of-powers showdown; The issue lands there just as the House prepares a floor vote on articles of impeachment.”
John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court takes up fight over Trump financial records.”
Dominic Holden of BuzzFeed News reports that “The Supreme Court Handed Trump Another Temporary Win In His Effort To Hide Financial Records; After Trump lost in lower courts, the Supreme Court is stepping in to hear his appeal in three major cases.”
And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Trump Subpoena Cases.”
“Applying the Fourth Amendment’s Original Meaning to Cell Phones and Heat Sensors”: Mike Rappaport has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.
“The US air force gave her a choice: your baby or your job; As a new culture war rages around abortion, scholars believe a 1970s case taken up by Ruth Bader Ginsburg shows the lengths the US government has gone to in the past to control women’s sexuality.” Jessica Glenza and Alana Casanova-Burgess of The Guardian (UK) have this report.
And WNYC Radio’s “On the Media” today presented a related audio segment titled “Body of Law: Beyond Roe.”
Full Sixth Circuit agrees to rehear Ohio’s appeal from order prohibiting enforcement of that state’s Down syndrome abortion ban: You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granting rehearing en banc at this link.
My earlier coverage of the original divided three-judge panel’s ruling, which affirmed a district court’s preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the ban, can be accessed here.
Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court granted review in four new cases.
“Federal Judge Rules American Samoans Are U.S. Citizens by Birth. Finally. Denying them birthright citizenship is not just unconstitutional. It’s racist.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Top Court Poised to Act on Trump Bid to Shield Financial Records”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.
TRUMPF Inc. loses Seventh Circuit appeal a mere two days after the appeal was orally argued: Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook issued yesterday’s opinion on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel.
“Federal appeals panel: Title IX suit against Michigan State, Maybank has no legal basis.” Megan Banta of The Lansing State Journal has this report.
And Hannah Brock of The State News, the student newspaper of Michigan State University, reports that “Michigan State Title IX case dismissed.”
You can access today’s ruling of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in which all three judges wrote separately, at this link.
“Georgia wins major victory in legal fight with Florida over water use; Judge’s recommendation now heads to Supreme Court”: Tamar Hallerman of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has this report.
Jaewon Kang of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Judge Sides With Georgia Over Florida in Water-Use Dispute; Supreme Court to review the long-running dispute over management to Flint and Chattahoochee rivers.”
Kristin Lam of USA Today reports that “Georgia gains major court victory over Florida in decades-long dispute over Apalachicola Bay water use.”
Jeff Gill of The Times of Gainesville, Georgia has an article headlined “Did Georgia just win the water war? Judge issues what could be final ruling.”
Russ Bynum and Brendan Farrington of The Associated Press report that “Judge recommends Georgia prevail in water war with Florida.”
And Jim Saunders of News Service of Florida reports that “Florida’s arguments rejected in ‘water war’ over Apalachicola River, oyster industry.”
The U.S. Supreme Court appointed Senior Tenth Circuit Judge Paul J. Kelly, Jr. to serve as Special Master in this case, and you can access his report issued yesterday at this link.
“Divided Court Hears Trump Emoluments Case: ‘We Are Up Here Winging It’; A hearing in Virginia was the first time a full appeals panel has considered the anticorruption clauses of the Constitution.” Sharon LaFraniere of The New York Times has this report.
Jonathan O’Connell and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post report that “Trump’s D.C. hotel is at the center of anti-corruption, emoluments lawsuit.”
Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Judges Spar Over Emoluments Suit Against Trump; The president is seeking the lawsuit’s dismissal.”
Denise Lavoie of The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court rehears arguments in Trump hotel lawsuit.”
Andrew M Harris of Bloomberg News reports that “Trump Doesn’t Think Emoluments Clause Is Phony, U.S. Tells Court.”
Katelyn Polantz of CNN reports that “Appeals court divided on future of lawsuit over Trump hotel.”
Josh Gerstein of Politico has an article headlined “‘This one’s a lemon’ vs. ‘Is he above the law?’: Judges spar over Trump emoluments case.”
And Erika Williams of Courthouse News Service reports that “En Banc Fourth Circuit Split in Suit Over Trump Hotel.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has posted online here and here the audio of the oral arguments of the two cases that the court reheard en banc today.
“U.S. Supreme Court urged to enter fight over ‘excessive’ Pa. Turnpike tolls”: Matt Miller of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has this report.
“‘You Are Acting Inappropriately’: 2nd Circuit Scolds Lawyer Before Kicking Him Out; In an interview hours after the hearing, New York lawyer Todd Bank said he could have been more cordial, but he didn’t regret his comments in court.” Nate Robson of the New York Law Journal has this report.
You can access the audio of this three minute and 37 second oral argument at this link.
Putting aside this particular oral argument, even the best oral advocates often react noticeably when they perceive at oral argument that the court may not be in agreement with their side of the case. Some begin to argue more rapidly, while others may begin to argue more forcefully or in a less servile manner.
“State Supreme Court delays execution of death row inmate Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman”: Adam Tamburin has this front page article in today’s edition of The Tennessean.
