“Texas Booksellers Warn Fifth Circuit on Sex-Content Rating Law; Texas law requires sellers to rate sex content of books in schools; State argues case was brought too early”: Jacqueline Thomsen of Bloomberg Law has this report.
And Cameron Langford of Courthouse News Service reports that “Booksellers assail Texas bill restricting school library books at Fifth Circuit; Vendors claim a new state law will force them to forfeit their First Amendment rights to continue selling books to Texas schools.”
You can access the audio of today’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.
“Court filing reveals Rep. Scott Perry’s vast web of contacts in bid to reverse 2020 election; A federal appeals court on Wednesday released previously secret text messages from Perry — only to remove them from the public docket later in the day”: Kyle Cheney of Politico has this report.
“Supreme Court Seems Wary of In-House S.E.C. Tribunals; The justices heard arguments over whether the Constitution allows the agency to pursue enforcement actions before its own judges instead of in federal courts”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court conservatives seem dubious about SEC’s in-house tribunals.”
Jess Bravin and Dave Michaels of The Wall Street Journal report that “Supreme Court Looks Poised to Curb SEC Enforcement Powers; Ruling on agency’s in-house court system could clear way for attacks on similar executive-branch bodies.”
John Fritze of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court signals support for hedge fund manager who wants to gut SEC enforcement.”
Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service reports that “Review of agency adjudication leaves Supreme Court with a puzzle; The Supreme Court found a problem but no solution in its review of how federal agencies enforce laws.”
At his Substack site, Chris Geidner has a post titled “The SEC case is really about Congress’s power to let agencies address today’s problems; Justice Sam Alito, compromise-maker?”
In commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a Jurisprudence essay titled “The Supreme Court Has Figured Out How to Gut a Bunch of Crucial Federal Laws at Once.”
And online at Vox, Ian Millhiser has an essay titled “The Supreme Court seeks a middle path between following the law and blowing up the government; SEC v. Jarkesy is still likely to end in a 6-3 decision against the federal government; But it probably won’t be a catastrophic loss.”
“‘A Titanic Decision’: Pa. Supreme Court’s Ruling Makes Venue Challenges Harder; Daniel Cummins, managing partner of Cummins Law, called the ruling, ‘another victory for the plaintiff bar at the appellate court level in Pennsylvania.’” Aleeza Furman of The Legal Intelligencer has this report.
“A Rando Trump Judge Just Blew a Giant Hole in the Voting Rights Act; In a shocking decision, Judge David Stras joined with fellow GOP appointee Raymond Gruender to make the VRA virtually unenforceable in seven states”: Elie Mystal has this essay online at The Nation.
“Judgment Preservation Insurance and the Federal Circuit”: Jonathan Stroud and Sam Korte have this guest post at the “Patently-O” blog.
“5th Circuit Will Hear Galveston Redistricting Lawsuit En Banc, Offering Another Chance to Weaken the Voting Rights Act”: Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog” about an order granting rehearing en banc that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued yesterday.
New “SCOTUSblog” feature titled “Advocates in Conversation”: Today a new “SCOTUSblog” feature has made its debut. The first two installments are videos titled “Jaime Santos makes her debut” and “Rick Simpson on double jeopardy.”
Noting California’s equivalent of Georgetown’s Supreme Court Institute for cases heading to oral argument before the Supreme Court of California: Many readers of this blog are no doubt aware that Georgetown Law’s Supreme Court Institute is an invaluable resource for attorneys who are preparing to argue a case at the U.S. Supreme Court.
While I was in D.C. earlier this month attending the 2023 Appellate Judges Education Institute Summit, I learned that a similar resource is available for attorneys who are preparing to argue a case before the Supreme Court of California.
Attorney Leah Spero, who serves as director of the California Appellate Advocacy Program and the UC Law Appellate Project at UC Law San Francisco, sent me an email explaining the program as follows:
The California Appellate Advocacy Program at UC Law San Francisco (formerly UC Hastings) offers moots to any attorney who will be arguing a civil case before the California Supreme Court. Only one party is mooted in each case, and the first attorney to respond to the program’s invitation is given the moot. The program is intended to maximize effective oral argument at the California Supreme Court by helping attorneys refine their arguments and, for those who are new to the Court, by giving them a sense of what to expect. The moots are offered free of charge, as a service to the legal community and in keeping with the educational mission and strong moot court tradition of UC Law SF.
You can learn more about the program via this link.
“Pa. Supreme Court rules companies can be sued in a given forum, no matter the percentage of its business done there”: Nicholas Malfitano of Pennsylvania Record has this report.
“Ohio attorney suspended over pooping in a Pringles can, leaving it in parking lot; The Ohio Supreme Court suspended an attorney for defecating into a Pringles can and dropping it in a parking lot of a crime-victim advocacy center”: Laura A. Bischoff of The Cincinnati Enquirer has this report.
And Dan Trevas of Court News Ohio reports that “Lawyer Suspended for Tossing Feces-Filled Pringles Can.”
You can access today’s per curiam ruling of the Supreme Court of Ohio at this link.
“Subpoenaing Friends Of SCOTUS Justices Will Immediately Backfire On Senate Democrats”: Mark Paoletta has this post online at The Federalist.
“Supreme Court to confront post-Roe abortion battles”: Zach Schonfeld of The Hill has this report.
“Supreme Court raises concerns with federal government agencies’ penalties versus right to jury trial”: Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times has this report.
Andrew Chung and John Kruzel of Reuters report that “US Supreme Court signals it could limit SEC in-house enforcement.”
And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “SEC’s Use of In-House Judges Cast in Doubt by Supreme Court.”
“Former Florida lawmaker makes case that Donna Adelson should be released from jail”: Benjamin Graber, M.D. has this essay online at The Tallahassee Democrat.
