“En Banc Pa. Superior Court Panel Weighs if Power Tool Maker May Be Sued in Philadelphia; Husqvarna’s arguments are part of an effort by the company to keep the lawsuit out of Philadelphia, after a trial judge there determined that the company did not conduct enough business in Philadelphia — at least proportionally — to establish venue”: Max Mitchell of The Legal Intelligencer has this report on the case that I reargued on behalf of the plaintiffs before a nine-judge en banc panel of the Pa. Superior Court on Wednesday morning.
And in other coverage of the case, at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has a post titled “First Amendment Right of Access Applies to Appellate Oral Arguments, and not just to trials.” My side of this case sought to keep the proceeding open to the public and the media, while the defendant fought to close the proceeding and filed a motion asking that the oral argument neither be videostreamed live on YouTube nor recorded for rebroadcast by Pennsylvania Cable Network.
Welcome back: On Wednesday morning, I had the pleasure of being the very first attorney in Pennsylvania history to argue by video before an en banc panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, whose nine judges were all also themselves participating by video. The oral argument wrapped-up between 11 a.m. and 11:15 a.m. on Wednesday morning.
At 12:25 p.m. on Wednesday afternoon, my entire neighborhood lost power as a result of the tremendously strong dericho that stormed across the northern and western Philadelphia suburbs. In today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Anthony R. Wood reports on the storms, which caused four deaths in the region and knocked out power for more than 400,000 customers, in an article headlined “‘Derecho,’ calm, and supercell thunderstorms a ‘rare’ and dangerous combination for Philly region.”
My local power company originally had predicted that we would get the power back by 11 p.m. last night. Early Thursday morning, the estimate was moved back to 11 p.m. tonight (Friday). Then, yesterday afternoon, the estimate was further pushed back to 11 p.m. Sunday night. Although it is now early June, yesterday the high temperature in my area reached 90 degrees, and the thermostat on the first floor of our house registered 80 degrees late yesterday afternoon even though we had closed the shades around the house yesterday morning to keep the sun out as much as possible.
Happily, shortly after 8 p.m. last night, our power was restored, and cable and internet service returned around an hour after that. The power outage lasted a little under 32 hours. According to the CDC, the contents of a full freezer can survive a power outage of up to 48 hours. Although my neighborhood was not among the first to have its power restored, we fortunately were also not among the last. I hope that others in region who are still awaiting the restoration of their power will likewise have it restored long before whatever their current estimates happen to be.
Programming note: This morning at 10 a.m. eastern time, I will be rearguing an appeal on behalf of my clients, the plaintiffs, before a nine-judge en banc panel of the Pa. Superior Court. The oral argument will be livestreamed on YouTube via this link starting at 10 a.m eastern time today thanks to yesterday’s order from that court denying the defendant’s request to prohibit the media and the public from accessing the oral argument in any manner.
In recent coverage of the matter, Matt Fair of Law360 reports that “Gardening Tools Co. Can’t Take Pa. Hearing Offline.”
Earlier, Max Mitchell of The Legal Intelligencer reported that “Tools Maker Wants Streamed Superior Court En Banc Argument Shielded From Public View; Husqvarna cited confidential sales data as the main reason for blocking public access; But plaintiffs counsel pushed back, saying that figures dating back to the mid-2010s could not place it at a competitive disadvantage.”
This will be my first from-home oral argument of the coronavirus era, although in April I did do a law school visit on the subject of appellate oral argument over Zoom. The Pa. Superior Court does not archive its oral arguments on YouTube for later viewing; one either views these live or not at all.
“D.C. Circuit sets oral argument date to review Judge Sullivan’s refusal to immediately close Michael Flynn’s case”: Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post has this report.
“Trump’s Response to Twitter Is Unconstitutional Harassment; His executive order aimed at social media companies should be ignored”: Law professor Tim Wu has this essay online at The New York Times.
“Majority on WV Supreme Court up for grabs in June 9 primary”: Lacie Pierson of The Charleston Gazette-Mail has this report.
“U.S. Supreme Court allows Calif. consumers to evade arbitration for injunctive claims”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.
“Appeals court mulls making Hillary Clinton testify on emails; A bid to block her deposition shares legal tactic with Michael Flynn’s move to shut down his prosecution”: Josh Gerstein of Politico has this report.
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.
“Does John Roberts Need to Check His Own Biases? Evidence from recent Supreme Court arguments suggests that the chief justice, like most people, may have ideological and gender blind spots.” Law professors Leah Litman and Tonja Jacobi have this essay online at The New York Times.
“A Legal Doctrine That Protects Cops In Court Is Getting Fresh Attention As Videos Surface Showing Police Violence; Courts can grant officers immunity from lawsuits over civil rights violations. Advocates are pushing to get rid of it”: Zoe Tillman of BuzzFeed News has this report.
“Barr personally ordered removal of protesters near White House, leading to use of force against largely peaceful crowd”: Carol D. Leonnig, Matt Zapotosky, Josh Dawsey, and Rebecca Tan of The Washington Post have this report.
“Tribunal ordena nuevo juicio para Pablo Casellas Toro; En 24 horas tendrá que celebrarse una vista de fianza, después de que se acogiera su reclamo al amparo de la decisión del Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos sobre los veredictos de culpabilidad unánimes”: Alex Figueroa Cancel of El Nuevo Dia of Puerto Rico recently had this report.
And in other coverage, Dánica Coto of The Associated Press reports that “Puerto Rico court orders new murder trial for judge’s son.”
“Sixth Circuit Rejects Kentucky’s Second Trimester Abortion Restrictions; The ruling is a win for the state’s only abortion clinic, which challenged the law on behalf of its patients”: Kevin Koeninger of Courthouse News Service has this report on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued today.
“Appeals court justice should be ousted for sexual misconduct, judicial watchdog says”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this report on a decision that California’s Commission on Judicial Performance issued today.
“A Dubious Legal Doctrine Protects Cities From Lawsuits Over Police Brutality; Here’s how Congress can fix it”: Orion de Nevers has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Emotional NC Supreme Court chief says racism, prejudice ‘stubbornly persist’ in courts”: Josh Shaffer and Will Doran of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina have this report.
“Trump calls for Supreme Court to reconsider flag burning laws”: Chandelis Duster of CNN has this report.
“Scott Peterson’s appeal for new trial to be heard by California Supreme Court”: Kevin Valine of The Modesto Bee has this report.
“Ohio Supreme Court assessing damage to building from weekend protests”: Laura Hancock of The Cleveland Plain Dealer has this report.
“Supreme Court Rules on Pension, Immigrant Deportation Cases; Rulings were among several decisions issued as justices work to clear caseload during final month of their current term”: Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal have this report.
“Supreme Court rejects challenge to attorneys’ mandatory state bar dues”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.
“Old law could leave 2020 presidential race in stalemate; Conditions may be ripe for an ‘almost unintelligible’ provision to muddle the election”: Todd Ruger of Roll Call has this report.
“Supreme Court Upholds Federal Response to Puerto Rico Debt; The case concerned the constitutionality of appointments to a government board charged with restructuring billions of dollars of debt”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court upholds Puerto Rico oversight board from constitutional challenge.”
Jess Bravin and Andrew Scurria of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Upholds Puerto Rico Oversight Board; Unanimous decision lets restructuring of $125 billion debt continue.”
Richard Wolf and Kristine Phillips of USA Today report that “Supreme Court lets Puerto Rico, after debt and disaster, avoid further upheaval.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court upholds Puerto Rico financial oversight board.”
Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court upholds Puerto Rico financial oversight board appointments.”
Greg Stohr and Michelle Kaske of Bloomberg News report that “Puerto Rico Board Upheld by Supreme Court in Defeat for Bondholders.”
By Ariane de Vogue and Jamie Ehrlich of CNN report that “Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of board charged with reorganizing Puerto Rican debt.”
Ronn Blitzer and Shannon Bream of Fox News report that “Supreme Court upholds Obama appointment of oversight board dealing with Puerto Rico’s financial crisis.”
Tucker Higgins and Dan Mangan of CNBC report that “Supreme Court hands hedge fund loss, rules Puerto Rico financial oversight board is legal.”
Katy O’Donnell of Politico reports that “High court backs Puerto Rico oversight board in blow to hedge funds; The court ruled that the appointments are constitutional because the board’s powers are ‘quintessentially local,’ rather than federal.”
John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court backs financial board overseeing Puerto Rico’s debt.”
And Jack Rodgers of Courthouse News Service reports that “High Court Rules Against Vulture Fund in Puerto Rican Debt Case.”
“Ward Connerly Rides Again; The civil-rights champ allies with Asian-Americans against race discrimination”: Columnist William McGurn has this essay online at The Wall Street Journal.
“Judge Sullivan says he is not required to ‘rubber stamp’ DOJ’s bid to dismiss Flynn case”: Ann E. Marimow and Carol D. Leonnig of The Washington Post have this report.
Charlie Savage of The New York Times reports that “Judge Asks Court Not to ‘Short Circuit’ His Review of Flynn Case; A lawyer for the trial judge told an appeals court why he wanted to examine the Justice Department’s ‘unusual’ request to dismiss the charge.”
Aruna Viswanatha of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Judge Seeks Time to Consider Motion to Dismiss Michael Flynn Case; U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan says Justice Department’s decision to drop case after guilty plea raises uncommon questions.”
Jeff Mordock of The Washington Times has reports headlined “Judge in Flynn case says he hasn’t decided if he’ll grant DOJ request to drop the case” and “DOJ: Judge has ‘no authority’ to reject request for dismissal in Flynn case.”
And Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein of Politico report that “DOJ urges appeals court to force dismissal of Flynn case; A lower-court judge has held up the dismissal, citing DOJ’s ‘unusual’ reversal.”
You can access Judge Sullivan’s brief at this link. And you can access the U.S. Department of Justice’s brief at this link.
“The Supreme Court Just Passed Up a Chance to Overrule Appallingly Racist Precedents”: Kyla Eastling, Danny Li, and Neil Weare have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Trump must be removed. So must his congressional enablers.” Columnist George F. Will has this essay online at The Washington Post.
“The Court Deals a Blow to a Pentecostal Church Just before Pentecost Sunday”: Carrie Campbell Severino has this post at the “Bench Memos” blog of National Review.
“Roberts embraces role as Supreme Court swing justice, with latest church ruling”: Ronn Blitzer of Fox News has this report.
Has the long-awaited judicial trifecta finally been achieved? From time to time, an appellate judge deciding a case will write both the majority opinion and then separately issue a concurring opinion. On occasion, I have joked that if only that judge had also issued a dissenting opinion, then he or she would have achieved the never-before-seen judicial trifecta.
Last Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a published opinion in which Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones is credited with being both the author of the majority opinion and the author of an opinion dissenting in part. This to my knowledge is closer than any other federal appellate judge has ever come to achieving the trifecta. Indeed, she could have achieved this distinction without question had she merely titled her separate opinion as concurring in part and dissenting in part. (h/t Josh Block.)
“It wasn’t just religious liberty that Chief Justice Roberts strangled”: Andrew C. McCarthy has this essay online at The Hill.
“Supreme Court Extends Hunt for $3 Billion in Offshore Madoff Cash; Justices decline to shield European banks and other foreign investors from litigation over money they received from Ponzi scheme”: Andrew Scurria of The Wall Street Journal has this report.
“Lewis F. Powell, Jr. United States Courthouse Complex: Access, Face Covering, Social Distancing, and Business Procedures.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued this notice today.
“State Debt and the Eleventh Amendment”: Michael T. Collins has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.
Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court issued rulings in five argued cases.
1. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court in Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A., No. 17-1712. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Neil M. Gorsuch joined. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor isued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Elena Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
2. Justice Kavanaugh also delivered the opinion of the Court in Nasrallah v. Barr, No. 18-1432. Justice Thomas issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
3. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court in Banister v. Davis, No. 18-6943. Justice Alito issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.
4. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in Financial Oversight and Management Bd. for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLC, No. 18-1334. Justices Thomas and Sotomayor each issued opinions concurring in the judgment. You can access the oral argument via this link.
5. And Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, No. 18-1048. Justice Sotomayor issued a concurring opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.
