“Professor wins free-speech fight over gender pronouns”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.
Jonathan Stempel of Reuters has a report headlined “Ohio professor who rejected transgender pronouns can sue university: U.S. appeals court.”
Kevin Koeninger of Courthouse News Service reports that “University Can’t Force Professor to Use Students’ Preferred Pronouns, Panel Rules; An appeals panel reinstated First Amendment claims brought by a philosophy professor who was threatened with suspension or termination after he refused to call a transgender student by her preferred pronouns because of his religious beliefs.”
Nicholas Rowan of the Washington Examiner reports that “Appeals court rules for professor who refused to use transgender student’s preferred pronouns.”
And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has a post titled “Pronouns in the University Classroom & the First Amendment; A federal appellate court lets a professor’s First Amendment claim go forward, in an opinion that powerfully protects faculty academic freedom more broadly.”
My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Sixth Circuit ruling can be accessed here.
Update: In other coverage, Derek Hawkins of The Washington Post reports that “A professor was reprimanded for refusing to use a transgender student’s pronouns. A court says he can sue.”
“Goldman Heads to the Supreme Court; Can a company be sued for failing to meet its boilerplate aspirations?” The Wall Street Journal has published this editorial.
“University Shouldn’t Punish Me for Not Addressing Male Student as ‘Ms.'” Nicholas Meriwether had this essay online at The Daily Signal in August 2020.
That same month, law professor Andrew Koppelman had an essay online at The Hill titled “Free speech gone wild: The Meriwether case.”
Today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued this decision written by Circuit Judge Amul R. Thapar reinstating various of Professor Meriwether’s claims against Shawnee State University officials.
The appeal was argued in November 2020 (access the oral argument audio via this link), with John J. Bursch representing the professor, and Adam G. Unikowsky representing intervenor appellees.
“The ‘shadow docket’: Why it’s a problem.” Lyle Denniston has this blog post.
“NCAA takes on student-athletes in U.S. Supreme Court compensation dispute”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.
And online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The Supreme Court showdown over whether colleges should pay their athletes, explained; Sports leagues enjoy some exemptions from antitrust laws, but do they apply to player compensation?“
“Supreme Court poised to jump into Second Amendment disputes, as nation mourns mass shootings”: John Fritze of USA Today has this report.
And Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court weighs taking up major gun rights case.”
“Goldman Fraud-Claim Case Will Test Supreme Court Shaped by Trump”: Greg Stohr and Robert Schmidt of Bloomberg News have this report.
“Case on Police Violence Reveals Fault Lines at Supreme Court; In a sharp exchange, dissenting conservatives suggested that Chief Justice Roberts warped the law in response to public sentiment”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.
In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Supreme Court divides on when a shooting by police can be considered excessive force.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court expands meaning of ‘seizure’ under 4th Amendment.”
In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin has an article headlined “Supreme Court Widens Path for Suing Police; Justices say officers can be sued for unreasonable seizure even when they fail to seize the suspect.”
John Fritze of USA Today has an article headlined “‘Nothing subtle about a bullet’: Supreme Court says police ‘seizure’ includes shots fired at fleeing suspect.”
Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court rules for woman shot by police while fleeing arrest.”
Elise Kaplan of The Albuquerque Journal reports that “US Supreme Court rules in favor of Albuquerque woman.”
Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press has a report headlined “High court: More police excessive force suits can go forward.”
And Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. Supreme Court widens ability to sue police for excessive force.”
“Who will be the next Antonin Scalia? Conservatives fight over his legacy.” Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.
“A New Five-Justice Block on the Supreme Court? In two decisions today, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh aligned with the Court’s liberals.” Jonathan H. Adler has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
“Schools Offer Empty Words to Asians; ‘We stand together,’ says Harvard’s president; Its admissions office stands accused of discrimination”: Wencong Fa will have this op-ed in Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.
“Christian baker Jack Phillips back in court for rebuffing gender-transition cake”: Valerie Richardson of The Washington Times has this report.
“What will the SG do in National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System? If the Biden Administration refuse to defend the constitutionality of the male-only selective service, Congress will not likely intervene.” Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
“Ford Can Be Sued in States Where Accidents Occurred, Supreme Court Rules; The justices unanimously rejected a plea to limit product liability suits in state courts”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Ford Must Face Liability Lawsuits, Supreme Court Rules; Unanimous decision hands setback to corporations seeking to limit state-court liability.”
Todd Spangler of The Detroit Free Press reports that “Ford loses Supreme Court decision, state claims can go forward.”
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices say accident victims can sue Ford in state courts.”
Pete Williams of NBC News reports that “Supreme Court makes it easier to sue big companies and police; The rulings make it easier to sue for alleged vehicle defects in states other than where an auto is made and sold, and for police use of excessive force.”
Martina Barash of Bloomberg Law reports that “Justices Hand Ford a Loss in Case Over Accident Jurisdiction.”
John Kruzel of The Hill reports that “Supreme Court permits state court lawsuits against Ford.”
And Jack Rodgers of Courthouse News Service reports that “Detroit Isn’t the Only Place to Sue Ford, High Court Rules.”
“Rasmussen, West Win 92nd Lile Moot Court Competition”: Mike Fox of the University of Virginia School of Law has this report. You can view the video recording of the final round of the competition on YouTube via this link.
Readers may recall a “How Appealing” post from early August 2020 titled “Avery Rasmussen ’21 To Clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.”
“There’s no time like the present to take a Second Amendment case; Thirteen years after Heller, it’s time for the Supreme Court to settle whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home”: Josh Blackman has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
“Critics of federal ban on firearms device win key decision”: Ed White of The Associated Press has this report.
Victor Morton of The Washington Times reports that “Bump stocks not ‘machine guns’ and not subject to ATF ban, federal appeals court rules.”
Kevin Koeninger of Courthouse News Service reports that “Bump Stocks Are Not Machine Guns, Sixth Circuit Rules; The appeals court held the classification of bump stocks as machine guns under federal law in the wake of the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas should not be enforced.”
And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Jonathan H. Adler has a post titled “Divided Sixth Circuit Panel Rejects Chevron Deference for Interpretation of Criminal Statute; A long awaited decision in a challenge to the Trump Administration’s ‘bump stock’ ban tees up some interesting questions for the High Court’s review.”
You can access today’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit at this link.
“Secret nanny cam recording can be used against woman accused of assaulting kids: Pa. Supreme Court.” Matt Miller of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has this report.
Today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania consists of a majority opinion, a concurring opinion, and two dissenting opinions (here and here).
“Guns are on Supreme Court’s agenda days after mass shootings”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.
“California’s top court ends cash bail for some defendants who can’t afford it”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this report.
Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “State Supreme Court cuts back cash bail system, allowing release for many without posting bond.”
Michael McGough and Andrew Sheeler of The Sacramento Bee report that “California Supreme Court rules cash bail unconstitutional for defendants who can’t afford it.”
Nico Savidge of The San Jose Mercury News has an article headlined “‘Gigantic momentous decision’: California Supreme Court shrinks role of cash bail in jailings; Landmark ruling directs judges to expand use of non-jail alternatives and affordable bail, and increases burden to justify public-safety detainments.”
Don Thompson of The Associated Press has a report headlined “California high court: Judges must weigh ability to pay bail.”
Maria Dinzeo of Courthouse News Service reports that “Bail Cannot Be Imposed Without Considering Ability to Pay, CA High Court Rules; In a landmark ruling on cash bail, the California Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot keep detainees behind bars just because they cannot afford to post bail.”
And at the “At the Lectern” blog, David Ettinger has a post titled “Affordable bail or other release conditions required instead of pretrial detention in most cases.”
You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of California at this link.
“In barbed dissents, Trump appointees call out 9th Circuit colleagues in immigration case”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this post about an order denying rehearing en banc, and the opinions concurring therein and dissenting therefrom, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.
“How the Supreme Court Could Supercharge the GOP’s Voter Suppression Agenda; A new case could open up the door to unapologetic discrimination”: Jay Willis has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“Testing Time at the Supreme Court: The outcome of a property rights case could foretell how much conservatives can expect from the justices.” Linda Greenhouse has this essay online at The New York Times.
Seventh Circuit judge Frank H. Easterbrook sure knows how to start an opinion: Here are two recent examples.
From yesterday: “Does the Constitution of the United States tell us the limits of criticism in reviews of standing desks?”
And from Tuesday: “Dwight Jackson made a career of armed bank robbery. Thirty minutes after being released from prison for two of his robberies, Jackson committed another.”
In which the Seventh Circuit reasons that having had a meth lab in your kitchen militates against compassionate release to home confinement: You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link.
“1st Circuit won’t touch Uber driver’s bid for employee status”: Daniel Wiessner of Reuters has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued Tuesday.
“(At Least) Nine Conceptions of Common Law in One Takings Case”: Michael C. Dorf has this blog post at “Dorf on Law.”
“Colorado baker who won Supreme Court battle calls gender transition cake case ‘a trap’; Owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Jack Phillips described his experience at trial this week”: Brooke Singman of Fox News has this report.
Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court issued two rulings in argued cases.
1. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist., No. 19-368. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined. Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate in the ruling.
2. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Torres v. Madrid, No. 19-292. Justice Gorsuch issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined. Justice Barrett did not participate in the ruling.
“How to Restore Balance to Libel Law: The Supreme Court can curtail the worst media abuse without overturning its landmark 1964 ruling.” Law professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds will have this op-ed in Thursday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.
“‘It is the moral thing to do’: Virginia’s death penalty abolished in historic signing.” Frank Green of The Richmond Times-Dispatch has this report.
“Senate Republican pushes for criminal charges against fake Kavanaugh accusers”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.
“Sidney Powell’s defense in defamation suit could put her in legal jeopardy”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN has this report.
“Supreme Court struggles with when police may enter home for safety checks or suicide threats”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.
Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Considers Police Leeway Without Warrant; Justices hear arguments in case seeking to draw line between police’s law-enforcement and care-taking functions.”
Katie Mulvaney of The Providence Journal has an article headlined “Cranston police seized a man’s guns in 2015. What the U.S. Supreme Court heard about it in 2021.”
Jessica Gresko of The Associated Press reports that “High court mulls police power to enter homes without warrant.”
Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “With the elderly in mind, U.S. Supreme Court wary of limiting police in home entries.”
Kaila Philo of Courthouse News Service reports that “‘Just Shoot Me’ Plea Brought the Police, and High Court Battle; Though officers say they don’t need a warrant for situations that require community caretaking, the bounds of such scenarios, from cats up trees to stacks of unopened mail, made for tricky oral arguments Wednesday.”
And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Mulls Whether Police Can Enter Home Without Warrant To Save A Life.”
You can access via this link the audio and transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Caniglia v. Strom, No. 20-157.
“Amid gun control debate, federal court rules states may restrict open carry of weapons”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this report.
Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “U.S. appeals court says no, it’s not OK to carry guns in public without a license.”
Victor Morton and Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times report that “Americans have ‘no right’ to carry guns in public, 9th Circuit Court rules.”
Jennifer Sinco Kelleher of The Associated Press reports that “Ruling upholds Hawaii limits on carrying guns in public.”
And Nicholas Iovino of Courthouse News Service reports that “Carrying Guns in Public is Not a Constitutional Right, Ninth Circuit Rules; The majority of an 11-judge en banc Ninth Circuit panel concluded that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to carry firearms outside the home.”
You can access today’s 215-page, 7-to-4 en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.
