“Judges call Jeffrey Epstein case a ‘national disgrace,’ but reject bid to undo deal”: Jay Weaver and Julie K. Brown of The Miami Herald have this report.
Bill Rankin of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has an article headlined “Court: Epstein victim cannot hold federal prosecutors accountable.”
Stephen Rex Brown of The New York Daily News reports that “Jeffrey Epstein alleged victim loses challenge to 2007 plea deal with feds.”
Priscilla DeGregory of The New York Post reports that “Jeffrey Epstein accuser loses bid to unmask his accomplices.”
Cheyenne Roundtree of The Daily Mail (UK) reports that “Jeffrey Epstein victim loses her bid to challenge the dead pedophile’s sweetheart deal with Florida prosecutors.”
Chris Spargo of The Sun (UK) reports that “Jeffrey Epstein victims ignored by courts again as judges back pedophile over sex assault survivors in plea deal case.”
Curt Anderson of The Associated Press reports that “Court denies Epstein victim’s appeal over rights violation.”
Brendan Pierson of Reuters reports that “Appeals court upholds Jeffrey Epstein’s non-prosecution deal.”
Tina Davis of Bloomberg News reports that “Epstein Victim Loses Challenge to Sex-Case Deal in Florida.”
Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Appeals court sides with feds on Jeffrey Epstein deal; Divided ruling savages prosecutors, but says victims did not have legal right to be consulted.”
Harper Neidig of The Hill reports that “Appeals court finds prosecutors’ secret plea agreement with Epstein didn’t break law.”
Kate Briquelet of The Daily Beast reports that “Court Rules Against Epstein Victims on Controversial Plea Deal; A federal appeals court says the Crime Victims’ Rights Act does not apply to Epstein’s victims, who sued over the pedophile financier’s controversial 2008 plea deal.”
Dave Plotkin of The Orlando Weekly reports that “Federal appeals court rules Epstein’s Florida victims have no rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act.”
Michael Moline of Florida Phoenix reports that “A victim preyed upon by Jeffrey Epstein loses in a federal appeals court.”
Izzy Kapnick of Courthouse News Service reports that “11th Circuit Refuses to Toss Epstein Deal With Prosecutors; Despite their sympathy for ‘unspeakable horror’ suffered at Jeffrey Epstein’s hands, a 2-1 majority found the Crime Victims’ Rights Act does not provide relief for victims who are mistreated before a formal charge is filed.”
And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Paul Cassell — who serves as co-counsel for the victim-petitioner in this matter — has a post titled “The Eleventh Circuit Concludes That Jeffrey Epstein’s Florida Victims Had No Rights Under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act; While calling the secret non-prosecution agreement of Epstein a ‘national disgrace,’ the Eleventh Circuit holds that the CVRA only extends victims’ rights after an indictment; We will ask for rehearing en banc.”
My earlier coverage of today’s divided Eleventh Circuit three-judge panel ruling can be accessed here.
“Something We Haven’t Seen in the Supreme Court Since the Civil War”: Adam Feldman has this noteworthy post at his “Empirical SCOTUS” blog.
“Courtroom access: Dreaming of a spot in the courtroom.” Amy Howe has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
“Death penalty states urged to release stockpiled drugs for Covid-19 patients; Top health experts sign letter saying badly needed medications used in lethal injections ‘could save the lives of hundreds'”: Ed Pilkington of The Guardian (UK) has this report.
“The controversy over a Trump judge’s oddly partisan ‘religious liberty’ opinion, explained; If you want to be taken seriously as a judge, maybe don’t use your opinion to list the names of Democrats who were in the Klan?” Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.
And online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “The Trump Bench: Justin Walker. Donald Trump’s most enduring legacy will be his judges. Who are they?“
“Live from the Supreme Court: It’s oral arguments as they happen for the first time ever.” Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.
And at the “School Law” blog of Education Week, Mark Walsh has a post titled “High Court to Hear Telephone Arguments, Including in Religious-School Case.”
“Former congressman slams ‘slow-walking’ Georgia Supreme Court; ‘Time’s a wastin’ and time is important'”: Greg Bluestein of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has an article that begins, “Former U.S. Rep. John Barrow slammed the Georgia Supreme Court for ‘slow-walking’ a ruling on a lawsuit that will decide whether he can run for a seat vacated by Justice Keith Blackwell or whether that opening will be filled by Gov. Brian Kemp.”
And R. Robin McDonald of The Daily Report of Fulton County, Georgia has an article headlined “John Barrow Accuses Ga. Supreme Court of ‘Slow Walking’ Ruling on Justice Blackwell’s Seat; ‘There are lots of ways to suppress the vote,’ said former U.S. Rep. John Barrow, who wants to run for Justice Keith Blackwell’s seat.”
“Jeffrey Epstein’s sex victims turn to appeals court after judge denies relief”: On October 1, 2019, Jay Weaver of The Miami Herald had an article that begins, “A South Florida woman who accused Jeffrey Epstein of sexually assaulting her when she was a girl is urging a federal appeals court to provide relief to multiple victims like herself who were not notified of a ‘sweetheart’ prosecution deal with the wealthy financier.”
Today, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued this 120-page decision denying the victim’s petition for writ of mandamus.
Circuit Judge Kevin C. Newsom wrote the majority opinion. Senior Circuit Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat issued a concurring opinion. And Senior Circuit Judge Frank M. Hull issued a dissenting opinion.
“Can You Hear Me Now, Justice? The Supreme Court’s telephone arguments are an unprecedented step.” The Wall Street Journal has published this editorial.
“Reading the Justices a Potential Challenge With Phone Arguments”: Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson and Jordan S. Rubin of Bloomberg Law have this report.
“Zoom May Be ‘SNL’-Ready. But How About for the Justice System? As COVID-19 prompts continued social distancing, some are trying to adapt to the new reality while others insist on waiting for normality to return; Take, for example, a hot privacy dispute involving the Weather Channel app.” Eriq Gardner has this post at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter.
“Ricky Martin sued again for allegedly plagiarizing ‘Vida’ music video”: Fox News had this report back in February 2016.
Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued this decision instructing the district court to reconsider its dismissal of the plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim against Martin.
“Senate hits pause on confirming Trump’s judges; Senate Republicans are vowing to renew their push on judicial nominees once they return to the Capitol”: Marianne LeVine of Politico has this report.
“Liberal Challenger Defeats Conservative Incumbent in Wisconsin Supreme Court Race; Republicans’ voter suppression efforts appear to have backfired”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Judicial Zoom: Courts rapidly adopting videoconferencing tech to conduct business.” Ryan Lovelace of The Washington Times has an article that begins, “The Zoom videoconferencing platform is fast becoming the judiciary’s technology of choice to conduct business while following social distancing requirements for the coronavirus pandemic.”
“Ninth Circuit Review — Reviewed: CA9 Is Broken.” William Yeatman recently had this interesting post at the “Notice & Comment” blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation.
“Little Rock abortion clinic files challenge to order banning surgeries amid pandemic”: Linda Satter of The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette has this report.
And Ema O’Connor of BuzzFeed News reports that “Arkansas Is Being Sued For Banning Abortions During The Coronavirus But Letting Dentists Continue Taking Appointments; Arkansas is the sixth state to try to block abortion access during the pandemic.”
“Supreme Court To Hear 3 Cases Involving Trump Financial Records Via Teleconference”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”
“Liberal Jill Karofsky defeats conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court justice Daniel Kelly”: Patrick Marley of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this report.
“How a Supreme Court Decision Curtailed the Right to Vote in Wisconsin”: Jim Rutenberg and Nick Corasaniti of The New York Times have this report.
“Jill Karofsky Wins Wisconsin Supreme Court Race in a Boost for Liberals; In results delayed by voting changes forced by the virus, Ms. Karofsky defeated the conservative incumbent in an upset, and Joe Biden defeated Bernie Sanders in the presidential primary”: Reid J. Epstein of The New York Times has this report.
“Jill Karofsky declares victory over incumbent Daniel Kelly for Wisconsin Supreme Court seat”: Briana Reilly of The Cap Times of Madison, Wisconsin has this report.
The New York Times is tracking the results “live” via this link.
“Judge Justin Walker — Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit”: Harsh Voruganti has this post at his blog, “The Vetting Room.”
“Courtroom access: For DACA recipient, the experience of hearing a Supreme Court argument was bittersweet.” Casey Quinlan has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”
“The Supreme Court Will Hear Arguments by Phone. The Public Can Listen In. For the first time, the nation’s highest court will open a live audio feed as it hears arguments in 10 sets of cases.” Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Due to coronavirus, Supreme Court will hear oral arguments via telephone for first time.”
Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court to hear Trump tax case, others via telephone in May.”
And Todd Ruger of Roll Call reports that “Supreme Court to hear oral arguments by telephone in May; High court will also look to livestreaming of proceedings.”
In the April 20, 2020 issue of The New Yorker: Jane Mayer has “A Reporter at Large” article headlined “How Mitch McConnell Became Trump’s Enabler-in-Chief; The Senate Majority Leader’s refusal to rein in the President is looking riskier than ever.”
And Jerome Groopman has a book review essay titled “Do Some Surgical Implants Do More Harm Than Good? Many are clearly lifesaving, but others have proved to be life-threatening, and dangerous implants are marketed with scant oversight.”
“Zoom Arguments — A View from the Texas Supreme Court”: Justice Eva Guzman of the Supreme Court of Texas has this guest post at the “Appellate Advocacy Blog.”
“Three Years Later, Gorsuch Delivers”: Mike Davis and David Feder have this essay online at Townhall.
“It’s unclear if Colorado counties can legally evict visitors to slow coronavirus. But one is doing it anyway. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton argues that Gunnison County’s order intended to keep the community’s small hospital from being overwhelmed is unconstitutional. Other Colorado communities are following suit to shut out visitors.” Nancy Lofholm has this article online at The Colorado Sun.
“The Judge Will See You On Zoom, But The Public Is Mostly Left Out; Volunteers who monitor courts across the country say they are getting little access to online-only proceedings”: Jamiles Lartey of The Marshall Project has this report.
“All seven Supreme Court justices voted absentee, even those who hadn’t in the past”: Columnist Daniel Bice has this essay online at The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
“Abortion dispute spurs whiplash for abortion clinics in Texas”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.
And Ephrat Livni of Quartz reports that “Texas’ ‘severe’ pandemic abortion ban lands at the US Supreme Court.”
“Supreme Court for first time to hold arguments via teleconference next month”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.
Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court to Break Tradition, Hold Oral Arguments by Teleconference; Court plans phone arguments in May, including in cases about President Trump’s financial records.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court to hold May arguments by teleconference.”
Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters report that “U.S. Supreme Court to hear Trump financial records cases by teleconference in May.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Bows to Crisis With Arguments Via Conference Call.”
Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court to hear cases on Trump’s financial docs, religious freedom and Electoral College via telephone.”
Tucker Higgins of CNBC reports that “Supreme Court to hear historic oral arguments over Trump tax records and Electoral College virtually in May.”
Josh Gerstein of Politico reports that “Virus threat prompts Supreme Court to set phone arguments; The court will hear disputes over Trump financial records and Obamacare religious exemption next month.”
And John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court to hear oral arguments by telephone.”
According to the news release that the U.S. Supreme Court issued today, a live feed of the oral argument will be provided only to members of the news media. Whether the “How Appealing” blog will qualify as “news media” for this purpose remains to be seen.
In any event, presumably the news media receiving the live audio feed will have the First Amendment right to broadcast the audio feed live to the general public, making my earlier question moot.
“Husband of Shaw’s stabbing victim appeals dismissal of civil case; Judge D. Brock Hornby had dismissed the lawsuit Jeffrey Boudreau filed against the supermarket chain following his wife’s murder in the Saco store in 2015”: Liz Gotthelf of The Journal Tribune of Biddeford, Maine had this report back in July 2019.
On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued this decision affirming the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the supermarket.
“Ain’t no party like a South Boston St. Patrick’s party, cuz it don’t stop, no, it don’t stop — at least until the cops show up, and sometimes not even then”: Adam Gaffin of Boston’s Universal Hub has this report on a qualified immunity-based ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued Friday.
