“Trump administration’s plans to resume federal executions debated at appeals court”: Mark Berman and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post have this report.
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Judges Scrutinize Federal Death Penalty Law in Condemned Inmates’ Challenge; Fate of federal prisoners on death row may hinge on the definition of a single word in the Federal Death Penalty Act: ‘manner.’”
Kristine Phillips of USA Today reports that “DOJ says it has authority to carry out federal executions regardless of state rules.”
Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Court wrestles with muddled law on federal execution process; The arguments Wednesday seemed to split the three judges along ideological lines.”
John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Appeals court appears wary of letting Trump reinstate death sentences.”
Jordan S. Rubin of Bloomberg Law reports that “Trump-Appointed Judges Appear to Side with Federal Execution Bid” (subscription may be required for full access).
And Megan Mineiro of Courthouse News Service reports that “DC Circuit Digs Into Resumption of Federal Death Penalty.”
You can access via this link the audio of today’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
“In Age Bias Case, Justices Discuss ‘O.K. Boomer’ and Eggless Cakes; A lively Supreme Court argument on protecting federal workers from age discrimination included telling remarks from several justices”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has an article headlined “The chief justice wanted to know: Is ‘OK boomer’ ageist? (He may have been asking for a friend.)”
Savannah Behrmann of USA Today has an article headlined “‘OK, boomer’: Chief Justice John Roberts asks if phrase counts as age discrimination.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “‘OK, Boomer’ makes a Supreme Court appearance in age case.”
Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “‘OK Boomer’ makes it to the Supreme Court.”
J. Edward Moreno of The Hill reports that “Chief Justice Roberts references ‘OK, boomer’ in age discrimination case.”
Josephine Harvey of HuffPost has a report headlined “Welcome To 2020: ‘OK Boomer’ Is Being Thrown Around At The Supreme Court; Chief Justice John Roberts casually cited the retort during argument in an age discrimination case.”
Jack Rodgers of Courthouse News Service has a report headlined “‘OK, Boomer’: Meme Gets Air Time in High Court Case.”
On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Chief Justice Roberts: Is ‘OK, Boomer’ Evidence Of Age Discrimination?”
At “SCOTUSblog,” Mark Walsh has a post titled “A ‘view’ from the courtroom: ‘OK, boomer.’”
And Paul Blest of Vice News has a report headlined “It’s Official: The Supreme Court Just Killed the ‘OK, Boomer’ Meme; Chief Justice John Roberts dropped a tentative ‘OK, Boomer’ during arguments in a case about age discrimination.”
You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Babb v. Wilkie, No. 18-882.
“Jeff Brandes bill, citing Markel murder case, could allow grandparents more visitation rights”: Karl Etters of The Tallahassee Democrat has this report.
Majority on divided Fifth Circuit panel doesn’t care about your pronouns: Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan today issued this majority opinion on behalf of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
And Circuit Judge James L. Dennis issued a dissenting opinion.
In news coverage of the ruling, Chris Johnson of the Washington Blade reports that “Trump-appointed judge rebuffs trans inmate on preferred pronouns.”
“Justice Ming Chin to retire from California Supreme Court, giving Newsom his first appointment”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this report.
Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Conservative California Supreme Court Justice Ming Chin to retire.”
And the California Courts Newsroom today issued a news release titled “Justice Ming Chin to Retire from California Supreme Court.”
“Why the Court should grant the petitions in the ACA case despite the absence of any injunction”: Marty Lederman has this post at the “Balkinization” blog.
Online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “A Trump tweet revealed the absurdity of the legal case against Obamacare; Even Trump’s having trouble getting his head around the Trump administration’s legal arguments.”
And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Jonathan H. Adler has a post titled “President Trump Rejects Premise of Justice Department Briefs in ACA Case; Once again, the President’s Twitter feed contradicts the claims of his lawyers.”
“The Right to Move Freely: How we lost it, and why it matters.” Kia Rahnama has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Can Trump Actually Stop the Senate From Hearing From Witnesses? In a word, no.” Law professor Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr. has this essay online at The New York Times.
“Senators to practice rules of decorum during impeachment proceedings”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.
“John Roberts won’t save the country from Trump”: Columnist Ruth Marcus has this op-ed in today’s edition of The Washington Post.
“The Plot to Level the Administrative State: The Supreme Court’s conservative majority could use an obscure legal doctrine to permanently kneecap the ability of progressives to govern.” Matt Ford of The New Republic has this report.
“Trump Bench: Amy Coney Barrett; Meet Trump’s favored pick for the next Supreme Court opening.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
Programming note: The Education Planning Committee meeting for the 2020 Appellate Judges Education Institute Summit in Austin, Texas has concluded. The 2020 AJEI Summit itself will take place in Austin November 12-15, 2020. I will be traveling home from Austin, Texas this afternoon and this evening. As a result, additional posts will appear here on Wednesday morning if not sooner.
As always while I am traveling, more frequent appellate-related retweets will appear on this blog’s Twitter feed.
“Wanted: A republican Judiciary.” Law professor Marc O. DeGirolami has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.
“The coming Supreme Court showdown over birth control; Justice Scalia’s death delayed a reckoning; Now the fight over contraception is back”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.
“At Supreme Court, Another Potential Loss For Prosecutors Fighting Public Corruption”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”
In the January 20, 2020 issue of The New Yorker: David Rohde has an article headlined “William Barr, Trump’s Sword and Shield: The Attorney General’s mission to maximize executive power and protect the Presidency.”
Elizabeth Flock has an article headlined “How Far Can Abused Women Go to Protect Themselves? Fighting back against rapists and abusers is a valid legal defense; But women with persuasive self-defense claims continue to be charged with murder.”
And Louis Menand has a Books essay titled “The Changing Meaning of Affirmative Action: The past and the future of a long-embattled policy.”
“Supreme Court’s war on prosecutors meets ‘Bridgegate'”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.
Ted Sherman of NJ Advance Media has an article headlined “Was Bridgegate Jersey-style hardball, or corruption? The U.S. Supreme Court takes up the question on Tuesday.”
Pete Williams of NBC News has a report headlined “‘Bridgegate’ scandal comes to the Supreme Court. Did prosecutors overreach? Two officials tied to then-Gov. Chris Christie were sentenced to prison for their roles in creating massive traffic jams on the N.J.-N.Y. crossing.”
Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court to tackle corruption questions in Bridgegate case.”
And in commentary, today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal contained an editorial titled “A Prosecutorial Bridge Too Far: A Supreme Court case that could criminalize common political mischief.”
“The Court Case That Could Finally Take Down Antiquated Anti-Catholic Laws; Thirty-seven states still have Blaine Amendments on the books; The Supreme Court now has a chance to get rid of them for good”: Nick Sibilla has this essay online at The Atlantic.
“Trump asks Supreme Court to allow public charge rule to go into effect”: Ariane de Vogue, Geneva Sands, Priscilla Alvarez, and Paul LeBlanc of CNN have this report.
“Sanders says he’d consider releasing Supreme Court shortlist; The Vermont senator asserted that releasing such a list even before the Democratic nomination was ‘not a bad idea'”: Caitlin Oprysko of Politico has this report.
“Criminally Petty”: You can access online at this link today’s new installment of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast, featuring law professors Melissa Murray and Kate Shaw.
“In McGahn Case, an Epic Constitutional Showdown; The Supreme Court has never definitively resolved whether Congress can sue the president”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.
“Culture War in the Workplace: Inside the court battle over trans employment discrimination.” Melissa Gira Grant has this article online at The New Republic.
“Democratic candidates propose bigger Supreme Court to counter ‘theft of judiciary'”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.
Programming note: During the day on Monday, January 13, 2020, I will be traveling to Austin, Texas, where on Monday evening I’ll be participating in part one of a two-day Education Planning Committee meeting for the 2020 Appellate Judges Education Institute Summit, which will be taking place in Austin November 12-15, 2020. When the meeting concludes late morning on Tuesday, we will have selected the likely program topics for this year’s Summit.
As a result, new posts will not appear here until either late Monday afternoon or Monday evening. As always while I am traveling, more frequent appellate-related retweets will appear on this blog’s Twitter feed.
At 9:30 a.m. eastern time on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court will issue an Order List, which you can access online via this link very soon after its issuance.
“Murder Suspect Gets No Relief for Ambiguous Request for Counsel”: Brian Flood of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued on Thursday.
“Sixth Circuit Restricts Habeas Rights, Opening Split With Fourth”: Mike Leonard of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued last Thursday.
“Security Guard Injured in 2015 Terrorist Attack Appeals Suit Against FBI; Undercover FBI agent texted one attacker telling him ‘Tear up Texas'”: Todd Shepherd of the Washington Free Beacon had this report back in May 2019.
On Friday, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued this decision affirming the lawsuit’s dismissal.
“Appeals court upholds temporary ruling barring discharge of HIV-positive service members”: Spencer S. Hsu of The Washington Post has this report.
Denise Lavoie of The Associated Press reports that “Ruling barring discharge of HIV-positive airmen upheld.”
Caroline Kelly of CNN reports that “Appeals court upholds ruling blocking Air Force from discharging HIV-positive service members.”
Tal Axelrod of The Hill reports that “Federal court upholds block keeping Air Force from discharging HIV-positive service members.”
And Erika Williams of Courthouse News Service reports that “Fourth Circuit Blocks Discharge of HIV-Positive Airmen.”
You can access Friday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at this link.
“U.S. appeals court upholds dismissal of lawsuits over missing Malaysia Air flight”: David Shepardson of Reuters has this report.
And Julie Steinberg of Bloomberg Law reports that “Malaysia Airlines Crash Suits Must Be Litigated in Malaysia” (subscription required for full access).
You can access Friday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.
“Lady Hale: ‘My Desert Island Judgments? Number one would probably be the prorogation case’; The ‘Beyoncé of the law,’ who put a stop to Boris Johnson’s parliamentary suspension, talks equality, ego and spider brooches.” Simon Hattenstone of The Guardian (UK) has this report.
“Judge was right in ex-U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown’s fraud conviction, appeals court says; The ruling means the former 12-term congresswoman from Jacksonville, convicted of fraud, will continue serving a sentence scheduled to end in 2022”: Steve Patterson and Andrew Pantazi of The Florida Times-Union have this report.
Jim Saunders of The News Service of Florida reports that “Ex-Rep. Corrine Brown’s conviction upheld in charity scam.”
Bernie Pazanowski of Bloomberg Law reports that “Juror Can’t Rely on ‘Holy Spirit’ to Acquit Ex-Lawmaker” (subscription required for full access).
And at “The SDFLA Blog,” David Oscar Markus has a post titled “Fascinating debate in the 11th Circuit about juror deliberations and divine intervention.”
Circuit Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum wrote Thursday’s majority opinion for a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. And Circuit Judge William H. Pryor Jr. issued a dissenting opinion.
“U.S. appeals court rebuffs Leander firefighter who was fired after refusing vaccine”: Chuck Lindell of The Austin American-Statesman has this report (subscription may be required for full access).
And Patrick Dorrian of Bloomberg Law reports that “Firefighter’s Religious Objection to Vaccine Fairly Accommodated” (subscription required for full access).
You can access Thursday’s ruling of a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link. Circuit Judge James C. Ho‘s opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part is his latest provocative separate writing.
“Stakes high as US Supreme Court weighs ‘Bridgegate’ case”: David Porter of The Associated Press has this report.
