“Bill Cosby loses bid to overturn his sexual assault conviction”: Jeremy Roebuck and Laura McCrystal of The Philadelphia Inquirer have this report.
Graham Bowley of The New York Times reports that “Bill Cosby Loses Appeal of Sexual Assault Conviction; A Pennsylvania appellate court unanimously rejected the entertainer’s argument that he had been denied a fair trial, saying that evidence in the case had established a ‘unique sexual assault playbook.’”
And Maryclaire Dale of The Associated Press reports that “Bill Cosby loses appeal of sexual assault conviction.”
You can access today’s ruling of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania at this link.
“What the Democrats Left Out: Instead of settling on charges that relate to statutory crimes, with clear, concrete criteria, the Democrats have instead released two articles of impeachment in which the misconduct exists largely in the eye of the beholder.” Law professor Josh Blackman has this essay online at The Atlantic.
And online at Bloomberg Opinion, law professor Noah Feldman has an essay titled “The Legal Strategy Behind Keeping Impeachment Simple; Why Democrats are focusing only on two compact articles of impeachment against Donald Trump.”
“Chief justice to hustle daily between two buildings for double duty during impeachment trial”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.
“Obamacare had an unusually good day at the Supreme Court; As many as six justices appeared bothered by a Republican effort to undercut the Affordable Care Act”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.
“Obamacare insurers may win a $12-billion claim in Supreme Court”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this report.
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices seem to favor insurers’ Obamacare claims for $12B.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court justices lean toward insurers on $12 billion Obamacare claims.”
You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Maine Community Health Options v. United States, No. 18-1023.
That’s rich! — As an advocate arguing his first post-resignation Ninth Circuit appeal, Alex Kozinski began his oral argument by inviting the judges to consider an unpublished concurring opinion for its persuasive value: Way back preceding the approval in 2006 of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1, which allows advocates to cite to unpublished and non-precedential opinions even in the Ninth Circuit for their persuasive value, then-Judge Kozinski was among the most forceful voices against the adoption of that proposed rule change. Perhaps, at least in this respect, he has seen the error of his ways.
“Thin and Thick Conceptions of the Nineteenth Amendment Right to Vote and Congress’s Power to Enforce It”: Law professors Richard L. Hasen and Leah Litman have posted this article online at SSRN.
“Senator Chuck Grassley and Judicial Confirmations”: Law professor Carl Tobias has this article at the Iowa Law Review Online.
Access online today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in an argued case: Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court in Rotkiske v. Klemm, No. 18-328. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued an opinion dissenting in part and dissenting from the judgment. You can access the oral argument via this link.
“The Age of the ‘Dead Parrot’ Supreme Court Case: Conservative activists keep asking the Court to hear cases that are already irrelevant — and, worryingly, the Court keeps saying yes.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.
“Berkeley’s cell-phone health warning survives Supreme Court challenge”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.
And Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court rejects challenge to Berkeley cell phone law.”
“A Maine insurer is arguing for billions in ACA money at the US Supreme Court today”: Caitlin Andrews and Michael Shepherd of The Bangor Daily News have this report.
“Impeachment for Corrupt Schemes: A Response to Josh Blackman; I couldn’t disagree more with my friend Josh Blackman; Here’s why.” Orin S. Kerr has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
“High Court Seeks U.S. Input on $3 Billion Bid by Madoff Trustee”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.
“U.S. Supreme Court rejects Arizona’s lawsuit against family that made a fortune on opioids”: Andrew Oxford of The Arizona Republic has this report.
Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star has an article headlined “High court: Arizona must wait on bankruptcy court to pursue Purdue Pharma assets.”
Nate Raymond of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court rejects Arizona opioid case against Purdue, Sackler family.”
Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court rejects Arizona challenge against Sackler family.”
And Tucker Higgins of CNBC reports that “Supreme Court refuses to hear unusual case brought by Arizona against Purdue Pharma’s Sacklers over the opioid epidemic.”
“The truth is finally out. The FBI fulfilled its mission.” James Comey has this essay online at The Washington Post.
D.C. Circuit issues expediting briefing schedule in Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Execution Protocol Cases: You can access this evening’s briefing schedule order at this link.
“Kozinski Argues Case at 9th Circuit After Sex Misconduct Claims”: Blake Brittain and Melissa Heelan Stanzione of Bloomberg Law have this report.
And Ross Todd of The Recorder reports that “Kozinski Contends Due Process Rights at Stake in Copyright Case Against ‘Shape of Water’ Filmmakers; Nearly two years after abruptly retiring amid sexual harassment allegations, the former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit returned to the court to argue on behalf of the son of a playwright who claims the filmmakers ripped off copyrighted elements of his father’s work.”
You can access on YouTube at this link the video of today’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
“David L. Shapiro ’54, Remembered as ‘Warm, Pithy, and Wise,’ Dies at 87”: Camille G. Caldera and Michelle G. Kurilla of The Harvard Crimson have written this obituary.
“An Introduction to #AppellateTwitter — It’s Worth a Look”: This month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column will be appearing in tomorrow’s issue of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.
Sometimes life is like a half-empty box of chocolates: Chief Judge Diane P. Wood issued this decision today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in a slack-fill case against the candymaker Fannie May.
“Trump business dealings argued at federal appeals court in emoluments case”: Ann E. Marimow and Jonathan O’Connell of The Washington Post have this report.
And Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “DOJ argues Congress can’t take non-legislative steps against Trump on emoluments.”
You can access via this link the audio of this morning’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
“Supreme Court Lets Kentucky Abortion Ultrasound Law Take Effect; The law requires doctors to show and describe ultrasounds to women seeking abortions; Challengers said it violated the First Amendment”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court won’t review abortion law challenged by doctors who say it violates their right to free speech.”
Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court rejects challenge to Kentucky’s abortion ultrasound law.”
Chris Kenning of The Louisville Courier Journal reports that “Supreme Court leaves Kentucky abortion ultrasound law in place.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court leaves Kentucky’s ultrasound law in place.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court leaves in place Kentucky abortion restriction.”
Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court rejects challenge to Kentucky abortion ultrasound law.”
David K. Li of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court leaves in place Kentucky abortion law mandating ultrasounds; Doctors must perform ultrasounds and have women listen to fetal heartbeats before performing abortions.”
Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico reports that “Supreme Court leaves in place Kentucky abortion restriction; The justices did not offer an explanation for their decision to refuse to hear a challenge to a lower court ruling upholding the restrictions.”
John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court declines to hear Kentucky ultrasound law.”
And in commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “The Supreme Court Lets Kentucky’s Anti-Abortion Transvaginal Ultrasound Law Stand.”
“The Clarence Thomas myth that refuses to die”: John Blake has this essay online at CNN.
“Kavanaugh opens door to carbon rule challenge”: Niina H. Farah of Energywire has this report.
If you wish to view, protest, or ignore retired Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski‘s return to that court as an oral advocate today: You can do so by clicking on, or not clicking on, this link to the live video of the oral argument on YouTube shortly after 12:30 p.m. eastern time, 9:30 a.m. pacific time, today.
On Friday, the organization Fix the Court issued a statement titled “Kozinski’s Return Shows Need for Congressional Action.”
This blog’s earlier posts previewing this oral argument can be accessed here (including links to the appellate briefs) and here.
“Violent Protests and Free Speech: Who’s to Blame for an Officer’s Injuries? The A.C.L.U. asked the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from DeRay Mckesson, a Black Lives Matter activist sued by a Louisiana police officer.” Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.
“An Introduction to #AppellateTwitter”: That’s the title I have proposed for tomorrow’s installment of my monthly “Upon Further Review” column to appear in The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers. Once the text becomes available online, I will link to it.
“Impeachment Based on Improper Motives”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases but called for the views of the Solicitor General in one case.
In Schexnayder v. Vannoy, No. 18-8341, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a statement respecting the denial of certiorari.
And in Cottier v. United States, No. 18-9261, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a statement respecting the denial of certiorari.
“Transgender Utahns await a resolution on gender markers from Utah Supreme Court”: Taylor Stevens of The Salt Lake Tribune has this report.
“What Trump has done to the courts, explained: No president in recent memory has done more to change the judiciary than Donald Trump.” Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.
“The 2020 Democrats and the New Politics of Gun Violence: The movement for tighter gun legislation has been revitalized, and supporting gun control is not the risk it once was.” Margaret Talbot has this Comment in the Talk of the Town section of the December 16, 2019 issue of The New Yorker.
“The Right’s Time in Court Is Now: On guns, abortion, and funding for religious education, legal conservatives want victory, and they know they may have a limited window for getting it.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.
“What the Law Professors Brought to the Trump Impeachment Hearings”: Amy Davidson Sorkin has this post online at The New Yorker.
