“Justice Dept. to appeal judge’s order on eviction moratorium”: Michael Balsamo of The Associated Press has this report.
Jessica Schneider of CNN reports that “DOJ files appeal of Trump-appointed judge’s ruling on CDC eviction moratorium.”
And Katy O’Donnell of Politico reports that “Justice Department appeals order blocking federal eviction ban; The federal court in Texas had ruled Thursday that the federal government had overstepped its authority in imposing the sweeping ban.”
“Arizona to argue before US Supreme Court that 2 laws don’t hurt minority voting”: Howard Fischer of The Arizona Daily Star has this report.
And Monday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an editorial titled “Voting Rights at the Supreme Court: The Justices have a rare chance to clarify federal election law.”
“Pa. woman linked to ‘alien reptile’ cult must stay jailed for killing boyfriend, state court says”: Matt Miller of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has this report on a non-precedential ruling that the Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued Tuesday.
“Supreme Court Reform? Three Proposals.” Berkeley Law’s Public Law and Policy Program recently hosted this event featuring law professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Orin Kerr and former D.C. Circuit Judge (and Supreme Court of California Justice) Janice Rogers Brown as panelists and law professor John Yoo as moderator.
You can access the video on YouTube via this link and a transcript via this link (scroll down).
“A Supreme Court Test for What’s Left of the Voting Rights Act; While state legislatures consider new voting restrictions to address claims of election fraud, the justices will hear arguments on what kind of legal scrutiny such laws should face”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court to again consider federal protections for minority voters.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court could put new limits on voting rights lawsuits.”
In commentary, online at The Washington Post, columnist Ruth Marcus has an essay titled “With voting rights already under attack, the Supreme Court could deal another big blow.”
And online at ABA Journal, law professor Erwin Chemerinsky has an essay titled “Voting rights cases before SCOTUS could have profound effects on future elections.”
“Supreme Court Sides With California Churches on Covid-19 Restrictions; Order blocks Santa Clara County from including churches in ban on indoor gatherings”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has this report.
In today’s edition of The San Jose Mercury News, Maggie Angst has a front page article headlined “U.S. Supreme Court lifts Santa Clara County’s ban on indoor religious services once and for all; Places of worship can return to indoor services with up to 20% of capacity.”
Nora Mishanec of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Santa Clara to resume indoor church services at 20% after U.S. Supreme Court order.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Supreme Court Again Allows Indoor Church Services, Lifts Ban.”
Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports that “Supreme Court once again sides with houses of worship in dispute over Covid restrictions.”
Michael Ruiz of Fox News reports that “Supreme Court blocks a California ban on indoor church services; The 6-3 decision came with the court’s liberal justices in dissent.”
And Jon Parton of Courthouse News Service reports that “Supreme Court Lifts Santa Clara Ban on Indoor Religious Services.”
You can access yesterday evening’s order of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the dissent therefrom, at this link.
“In latest Loughry twist, full panel of appeals judges will hear justice’s social media bias case”: Brad McElhinny of West Virginia’s MetroNews has this report.
And Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal reports that “Juror’s Twitter Use During Ex-Justice’s Fraud Trial Will Get New Scrutiny; Asking the full appeals court to take up the case, former West Virginia Justice Allen Loughry’s lawyer, Elbert Lin of Hunton Andrews Kurth, said his client’s petition ‘presents a single question of exceptional and growing importance.’”
My earlier coverage of the original three-judge panel’s partially divided ruling can be accessed here. The petition for rehearing en banc and the federal government’s response in opposition can also be accessed online.
“10 death row inmates in Oklahoma could get new trials”: Sean Murphy of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “As many as 10 death row inmates in Oklahoma, more than one-fifth of the state’s prisoners condemned to die, could escape execution because of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling concerning criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country.”
“New Orleans DA Jason Williams granting new trials to 22 convicted by split juries; He cites effort to wipe away stains of Jim Crow era”: Matt Sledge has this front page article in today’s edition of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans.
And Kevin McGill of The Associated Press reports that “New Orleans move to vacate 22 non-unanimous jury convictions.”
“‘Death Squad’ That Tossed 2,000 Patents Challenged at High Court”: Greg Stohr and Susan Decker of Bloomberg News have this report.
“Top Connecticut Court Grapples With Juror-Exclusion Prerogatives; Judges appeared leery about whether jury questionnaires singling out distrust of authority unfairly exclude minority voices”: Nick Rummell of Courthouse News Service has this report.
“Oregon will continue to allow acquittals by nonunanimous juries, new ruling says”: Jayati Ramakrishnan of The Oregonian has this report on a ruling that the Supreme Court of Oregon issued yesterday.
“Judge dismisses transgender woman’s suit against Miss United States of America pageant”: Maxine Bernstein of The Oregonian has this report.
And Karina Brown of Courthouse News Service reports that “Beauty Pageant Can Keep Barring Trans Women, Judge Rules; On the same day the U.S. House voted to advance sweeping protections for gay and transgender people, a federal judge ruled that a beauty pageant can limit contestants to only ‘natural born females.’”
The plaintiff in this case has posted on YouTube a video titled “Judge Dismisses My Case.” According to the docket entries in the case, the district judge announced his ruling orally yesterday and promised a written opinion to follow.
“Mandatory Bar Fees Could Violate Attorneys’ Constitutional Rights, 9th Circuit Rules; The ruling is the latest in an ongoing feud in Oregon and elsewhere over whether such compulsory payments violate the First Amendment rights of attorneys”: Alaina Lancaster of The Recorder has this report on a per curiam opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.
“How the NCAA Has Turned their Biggest Supreme Court Loss into Their Most Important Legal Shield”: Sam Ehrlich has this post at The Juris Lab.
“Justices deal loss to Grand Rapids man who challenged officers’ immunity”: Melissa Nann Burke of The Detroit News has this report.
John Tunison of The Grand Rapids Press reports that “U.S. Supreme Court rules against Grand Rapids man who claimed excessive police force, but case not over.”
Jordan S. Rubin of Bloomberg Law reports that “‘Fight Continues’ Post-SCOTUS for Man Beaten by Officers.”
Jack Rodgers of Courthouse News Service reports that “High Court Blocks Suit Over Mistaken-Identity Arrest.”
And online at Reason, Jacob Sullum has a post titled “SCOTUS Rules Against an Innocent Man Who Was Choked and Beaten by Cops, but He May Still Get His Day in Court; The justices did not address one of James King’s key arguments, which the 6th Circuit will now consider.”
“Students for Fair Admissions sues Yale, petitions to escalate Harvard case to Supreme Court”: Amelia Davidson of The Yale Daily News has this report.
“Alabama to allow spiritual advisor at inmate’s execution”: Kim Chandler of The Associated Press has this report.
“Manhattan D.A. Now Has Trump’s Tax Returns; After an 18-month court battle, prosecutors in Manhattan investigating possible bank and tax fraud have seized former President Donald J. Trump’s tax records”: Jonah E. Bromwich of The New York Times has this report.
“The Republicans Finally Face Merrick Garland — and Act as if They Were the Ones Unfairly Treated”: Amy Davidson Sorkin has this post online at The New Yorker.
“The Most Powerful Legal Organization in the Country”: You can access via this link this week’s installment of the “Deep Background with Noah Feldman” podcast with guest Eugene B. Meyer, president of the Federalist Society.
“The ‘bizarre’ twist in Clearview AI’s promised SCOTUS petition in biometric privacy case”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post.
“Yale sued by group claiming bias against Asian-American applicants”: Ed Stannard of The New Haven Register has an article that begins, “The group that lost a lawsuit against Harvard University, alleging discrimination against Asian-American applicants, on Thursday filed a similar federal lawsuit against Yale University.”
“Group that sued Harvard asks Supreme Court to end use of race in college admissions”: Nick Anderson and Robert Barnes of The Washington Post have this report.
Deirdre Fernandes of The Boston Globe reports that “Students for Fair Admissions asks Supreme Court to review Harvard case.”
Vivi E. Lu of The Harvard Crimson reports that “Students for Fair Admissions Petitions SCOTUS to Take Up Suit Against Harvard’s Race-Conscious Admissions.”
Nate Raymond of Reuters reports that “Affirmative action opponents ask U.S. Supreme Court to take up Harvard case.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Group asks justices to ban use of race in college admissions.”
Greg Stohr and Patricia Hurtado of Bloomberg News report that “Harvard Critics Ask Supreme Court to Ban Race in Admissions.”
Joan Biskupic of CNN reports that “Affirmative action opponents ask Supreme Court to hear case over Harvard’s policy.”
John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court asked to hear challenge to Harvard’s race-based admissions policy.”
And the organization Students for Fair Admissions today issued a news release titled “Students for Fair Admissions Files Petition for Certiorari to U.S. Supreme Court to End Race-Based Admissions at Harvard and All Colleges and Universities.”
You can access the petition for writ of certiorari at this link.
“A single Trump judge is already sabotaging Biden’s efforts to slow deportations; Biden is likely to spend his presidency fighting Republican judges who block his policies for legally dubious reasons”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.
“What should we expect from Biden’s commission on Supreme Court reform?” Russell Wheeler has this post at the “FixGov” blog of the Brookings Institution.
“They’re Not Going to Get Scurvy (with Elie Mystal)”: You can access via this link today’s new installment of the “In Loco Parent(i)s” podcast featuring Karen and Steve Vladeck.
“Expelled for a Night of Drunken Sex, $283,000 in Debt; A Michigan State University medical student was expelled shortly before graduation — three years after the incident”: Robby Soave had this post online at Reason in March 2020.
Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued this decision affirming the dismissal of the medical student’s suit alleging that Michigan State University’s proceedings resulting in his expulsion violated the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and Title IX.
Sixth Circuit reinstates Ohio State University’s Lanham Act and state law right-of-publicity claims against Redbubble: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit at this link.
In earlier coverage of the district court ruling that the Sixth Circuit reversed today, Eric Goldman had a post at his ” Technology & Marketing Law Blog” titled “Online Marketplace Defeats Trademark Suit Because It’s Not the ‘Seller’ — OSU v. Redbubble.”
At “Above the Law,” Scott Alan Burroughs had a blog post titled “Redbubble Blow-Up: IP Scofflaw Given Free Pass; Redbubble, like its online market cohorts, claims to have no responsibility for the goods it sells, and thus no liability for IP infringement — and a court actually agreed.”
And the district court decision was extensively discussed in an article online at Wired headlined “The Freewheeling, Copyright-Infringing World of Custom-Printed Tees; Print-on-demand companies allow anyone to upload designs for T-shirts, mugs, and other items; But many images violate intellectual property rights,” written by Roger Sollenberger.
“Teneral Cellars Releases Limited Edition Wine Collection Inspired by Legendary Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg; To honor RBG’s notorious legacy, Teneral Cellars will donate $10 from every 3-pack sold to the National Women’s Law Center”: Teneral Cellars has issued this news release.
You can access more information in this post at the winemaker’s blog.
“We Still Have to Worry About the Supreme Court and Elections; The justices are about to consider whether the Voting Rights Act applies to policies that restrict the vote”: Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.
“Cable Companies Don’t Have to ‘Unbundle’ Individual Programs; The First Circuit nixed a novel Maine law that would have allowed consumers to buy channels and programs on an à la carte basis rather than as part of a package”: Thomas F. Harrison of Courthouse News Service has this report on a ruling that a unanimous two-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued yesterday.
Update: In other coverage, at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has a post titled “Cable Operators Win Appeal Over Maine’s ‘A La Carte’ Law; The 1st Circuit won’t lift an injunction on a requirement that cable companies sell unbundled channels and programming.”
Access today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in an argued case: Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Brownback v. King, No. 19-546. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a concurring opinion.
“Students interview U.S. Supreme Court justice”: Julia Fechter of The Oconee Enterprise of Watkinsville, Georgia has this report.
“Congress Might Actually Expand the Courts; But will Republicans let Joe Biden fill the new seats?” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
