“N. Dakota Supreme Court Blocks Abortion Ban; Says Constitution Protects Procedure; The court’s opinion is not the final word on the case, but it upheld a lower court’s decision to suspend the state’s abortion ban”: Ava Sasani and David W. Chen of The New York Times have this report.
And online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay titled “An All-Republican State Supreme Court Unanimously Protects Abortion Rights.”
You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of North Dakota at this link.
“Federal Judges Got the Power to Remove Their Private Info From the Internet — And They’re Using It; The new program has arrived — and thrived — as members of Congress and the public have expressed concern about the federal government’s efforts to remove information online and sought more accountability of the judiciary”: Brad Kutner of The National Law Journal has this report.
“Jack Daniel’s, Confusion, and the Problematic Origin Story of this Blog’s Name”: Michael C. Dorf has this post at his blog, “Dorf on Law.”
Apparently I had made the same connection several years before the “Dorf on Law” blog came into existence in two “How Appealing” posts from 2003, here and here. (Yes, somehow this blog has been in existence for more than 20 years now!!!)
“Second Amendment Roundup: Should the Fifth Circuit Reconsider Rahimi En Banc?” Stephen Halbrook has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
“The Stanford Disruption: Who Should be Apologizing to Whom? There have been too few apologies for what transpired, not too many.” Jonathan H. Adler has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
And at Balls and Strikes, Elie Mystal has a post titled “Why Elite Law Schools Always Cave to Whatever Federalist Society Judges Want; Stanford Law School’s cowardly apology to Kyle Duncan demonstrates how institutionalists will always protect their institution — even if that means hanging the people who comprise it out to dry.”
“Sorry, Clarence Thomas, but Supreme Court Ethics Reform Is on the Table; A plan to save the high court from its own excesses — with bipartisan buy-in — is gathering steam; Here are the next steps to build on the unexpected momentum”: Simon Lazarus has this essay online at The New Republic.
“How Did State Supreme Court Races Get So Expensive? Wisconsin’s is only the latest example.” Nathaniel Rakich of FiveThirtyEight has this report.
“Why Ginsburg’s Age Didn’t Doom Her Candidacy; RBG’s debt to the twelve Reagan-Bush years”: Ed Whelan has this post at his “Confirmation Tales” Substack site.
“Kavanaugh and Alito said judges would be out of the abortion equation. That’s not the case.” Joan Biskupic of CNN has this report.
“How Little Nino Became Justice Scalia: James Rosen charts Scalia’s rise to greatness.” At the “Law & Liberty” blog, Edward Whelan has this post reviewing James Rosen‘s new book, “Scalia: Rise to Greatness, 1936 to 1986.”
“Senate Judiciary Absences Stall Embattled Circuit Nominee”: Tiana Headley of Bloomberg Law has this report.
“Georgia Judge Avoids Removal Over Ethical Concerns, For Now; Judge purportedly mistreated clients as an attorney; Code of Judicial Conduct only applies to judges”: David McAfee of Bloomberg Law has a report that begins, “A Georgia Court of Appeals judge won’t yet be removed from office, despite a recommendation for such a sanction, the state’s top court ruled Wednesday.”
“Court must uphold Indian Child Welfare Act. Future of tribal sovereignty depends on it.” Chuck Hoskin Jr. has this essay online at The Oklahoman.
“In Wisconsin, Liberals Barrage Conservative Court Candidate With Attack Ads; Daniel Kelly, the conservative candidate for a swing seat on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, promised that help was on the way; But his campaign has already been outspent on TV by $9.1 million to nothing”: Reid J. Epstein of The New York Times has this report.
“The Abortion Pill Case Is About Who Makes the Rules in America”: Susan Matthews has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“The Full Audio Recording Of Judge Kyle Duncan At Stanford Law; Listen to this recording, ye mighty, and despair — although whether you despair about law students or judges might vary based on your priors”: David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.
“Expensively credentialed, negligibly educated Stanford brats threw a tantrum”: Columnist George F. Will has this essay online at The Washington Post.
And online at The Nation, Elie Mystal has an essay titled “Protesting an Anti-Trans Trump Judge Isn’t Disrespectful, It’s American Judge Kyle Duncan lashed out at students who protested his appearance at Stanford Law School, but shouting at political figures is our most protected speech right.”
“Texas judge presses lawyers on FDA approval of key abortion drug; High-stakes lawsuit could upend access to mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medical abortions across the country”: Perry Stein, Caroline Kitchener, and Ann E. Marimow of The Washington Post have this report.
“Judges Want ‘Disruptive’ Law Students Flagged to Employers”: Seth Stern of Bloomberg Law has this report.
“Stop the Chaos: Law Schools Need to Crack Down on Student Disrupters Now; Administrators who promote intolerance don’t belong in legal education; And students who practice intolerance don’t belong in the legal profession.” Fifth Circuit Judge James C. Ho and Eleventh Circuit Judge Elizabeth L. Branch have this essay online at National Review.
“In the Gun Law Fights of 2023, a Need for Experts on the Weapons of 1791; A Supreme Court decision has forced courts to consider what gun restrictions existed two centuries ago, sending demand soaring for historians”: Shawn Hubler of The New York Times has this report.
“Font Wars Spread After State Department Replaces Times New Roman With Calibri; ‘I’m banging my head against the wall’; camps divided in fallout from government efforts to make documents easier to read”: Katie Deighton will have this front page article in Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.
“Trump Judge Kyle Duncan got exactly what he wanted out of Stanford: Fame.” Jay Willis has this essay online at The San Francisco Chronicle.
“Judge speaks on studying law; Judge Kyle Duncan of 5th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals spoke to Hillsdale Federalist Society”: Last Thursday, Adriana Azarian of The Hillsdale Collegian had an article that begins, “Law is one of the best ways to promote a return to America’s founding principles of justice and limited government, according to Judge Kyle Duncan of the 5th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.”
“Hating Everyone Everywhere All At Once At Stanford: Don’t Expect Free Speech Disputes To Have Heroes.” Ken White has this interesting post at his Substack site, “The Popehat Report.”
“NC Supreme Court hears a new round of arguments in partisan gerrymandering case”: Avi Bajpai and Danielle Battaglia of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina have this report.
And Will Doran of WRAL News reports that “NC Supreme Court re-hears arguments in controversial redistricting case; Republicans gerrymandered the state’s political maps so much that it violated the constitutional guarantee of free elections, the NC Supreme Court ruled last year; But the court has since shifted from Democratic to Republican control, and that case is getting a do-over.”
The Supreme Court of North Carolina has posted the video of today’s oral argument on YouTube at this link.
“Ted Cruz rips Stanford for ‘trying to train Antifa’ after students heckle conservative judge; Texas Republican rips treatment of Judge Kyle Duncan on his podcast ‘Verdict with Ted Cruz'”: Valerie Richardson of The Washington Times has this report. You can access the podcast episode via this link.
And online at The Daily Signal, GianCarlo Canaparo has an essay titled “That Tantrum at Stanford Law School and What to Do About It.”
“Lessons from The Trump Years for SCOTUS: Understanding the FedSoc’s SCOTUS takeover and why the rest of us have a rule of law problem.” You can access the current episode of Slate’s “Amicus” podcast featuring Dahlia Lithwick via this link.
“Federal Judiciary Seeks New Judgeship Positions”: The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts issued this news release today. If I understand the proposal correctly, if approved, the Ninth Circuit would expand to 31 active judges from its current authorized total of 29.
“This Judge Handcuffed a Child for No Reason. There Will Be No Real Consequences.” Law professor Steven Lubet recently had this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“A new Supreme Court case could be the most important transgender rights decision ever; And it arrives at the Supreme Court at an absolutely horrible time”: Ian Millhiser has this essay online at Vox.
“Beauty Pageants Have First Amendment Right to Limit Contestants to ‘Natural Born Females’: No Rehearing En Banc; The Ninth Circuit has just decided not to rehear this case, so the panel opinion remains the law.” Eugene Volokh has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” about an order denying rehearing en banc that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.
“7 Updates On Judge Kyle Duncan And Stanford Law; Here’s a curated yet comprehensive collection of news updates, original documents, and online commentary”: David Lat has this post at his “Original Jurisdiction” Substack site.
At The Washington Free Beacon, Aaron Sibarium reports that “Student Activists Target Stanford Law School Dean in Revolt Over Her Apology; Jenny Martinez becomes the target of student ire for saying ‘I’m sorry’ to besieged judge Kyle Duncan.”
Online at The Recorder, law professor Rory K. Little has an essay titled “Heckling as Principled Civil Disobedience.”
And today’s new episode of the “Advisory Opinions” podcast, featuring Sarah Isgur and David French, is titled “The Stanford Squeeze: Reaching ‘terminal stupidity.’“
“Save us, Supreme Court, from runaway regulation”: Columnist Hugh Hewitt has this essay online at The Washington Post.
“Constitutional Law, Constitutional Litigation, and the Truth About Constitutional Text”: Eric Segall has this post at “Dorf on Law.”
