“One would guess that the chances are pretty slim that the work of a 17th century French poet would find its way into a Chicago courtroom in 2009.” But, because an appeal that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided today involves the so-called “cat’s paw” theory, that’s exactly what has happened.
Today’s opinion, written by Circuit Judge Terence T. Evans, begins:
One would guess that the chances are pretty slim that the work of a 17th century French poet would find its way into a Chicago courtroom in 2009. But that’s the situation in this case as we try to make sense out of what has been dubbed the “cat’s paw” theory. The term derives from the fable “The Monkey and the Cat” penned by Jean de La Fontaine (1621-1695). In the tale, a clever–and rather unscrupulous–monkey persuades an unsuspecting feline to snatch chestnuts from a fire. The cat burns her paw in the process while the monkey profits, gulping down the chestnuts one by one. As understood today, a cat’s paw is a “tool” or “one used by another to accomplish his purposes.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1976). More on this a little later.
You can access a translation of the fable at this link, and the fable apparently has inspired at least several artists (see here and here).
Seventh Circuit decides appeal involving approximately 81,454 cans of baby formula: I guess the U.S. Department of Justice is free to attempt to approximate with exactitude, instead of using round numbers like 81,500. At least that appears to be the federal government’s position given the caption of the case known as United States v. Approximately 81,454 Cans of Baby Formula.
Incredibly, it’s another one of those “use by” versus “best when purchased by” date cases, and (as with the Beanie Baby line of appellate litigation) apparently this all but guarantees that Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner will be the opinion’s author. Unlike last time, when the federal government’s attorney failed to emerge unscathed, today the federal government actually wins the appeal. And, as a result, the baby formula — or at least its usefulness as a nutritious beverage — is on the losing end of today’s ruling.
“Court focuses skeptical eye on McCain-Feingold”: Tony Mauro has this news analysis online at the First Amendment Center.
Today’s U.S. Supreme Court opinion in an argued case: The Court today issued its opinion in Puckett v. United States, No. 07-9712. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court, in which the Chief Justice and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined. Justice David H. Souter issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice John Paul Stevens joined. You can access the ruling at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.
Update: The Associated Press reports that “Court rules for government in plea deal dispute.”
“Court weighs sex bias suit against Wal-Mart”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.
And Reuters reports that “Wal-Mart sex discrimination case back in court.”
This blog’s most recent earlier coverage of yesterday’s Ninth Circuit en banc argument — including a link to the oral argument audio — can be accessed here.
“Keller denies charges she closed court to death row appeal”: Chuck Lindell has this article today in The Austin American-Statesman. You can access the written response to the charges by clicking here.
The Houston Chronicle reports today that “Keller shifts blame for execution blunder.”
And John Schwartz of The New York Times reports that “Texas Judge Denies Charges of Misconduct.”
“Supreme Court hears free-speech case on ‘Hillary: The Movie’; A majority of justices appear to agree that limits on corporate campaign spending violate free speech; The question is whether they will strike down some or all such restrictions.” David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times. In addition, the newspaper contains an editorial entitled “Looking at ‘Hillary: The Movie’; Should 1st Amendment protections apply to a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton?”
Today in USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “High court hears arguments over anti-Clinton film.”
Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers has an article headlined “Political ad or free speech? Anti-Hillary film gets court screening.”
The Washington Times reports that “Justices view ‘Hillary’ movie; Group argues election film not campaign advocacy.”
Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “‘Hillary: The Movie’ gets high court attention.”
And Josh Gerstein of Politico.com reports that “SCOTUS argues anti-Clinton film.”
“Security Worries in the Suburbs; Possible Move of Terrorist Suspects To Alexandria for Trial Raises Outcry”: Jerry Markon has this article today in The Washington Post.
“Handling Of ‘State Secrets’ At Issue; Like Predecessor, New Justice Dept. Claiming Privilege”: The Washington Post contains this front page article today.
“Law School begins search for new dean”: This article appears today in The Yale Daily News.
And The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Human rights advocate named State Department’s top lawyer; Harold Hongju Koh, dean at the Yale Law School, has been one of the most vocal critics of the Bush administration’s approach to the detention and trial of terrorism suspects.”
“Ex-judge fights to have his pension reinstated; A former Creek County judge who was convicted of indecent exposure is asking an Oklahoma County judge to reinstate his judicial retirement pay”: The Tulsa World contains this article today.
“State’s top court hears pros, cons of housing bans for sex offenders; 118 New Jersey towns have such restrictions”: This article appears today in The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger.
And The Philadelphia Inquirer reports today that “N.J. high court weighs sex-offender laws.”
“Defense to present case in Kan. abortion trial”: The Associated Press has this report.
“6 candidates for chief justice have their say”: This article appears today in The Providence (R.I.) Journal.
“Judges for sale”: Today’s edition of The Boston Globe contains an editorial that begins, “How would you like to go into an appeals court if your opponent in the case spent $3 million to help elect one of the judges?”
“What Constitutional Rights Should Schoolchildren Have? Two Recent Cases Underscore the Ways in Which Children Are Not Simply Miniature Adults.” Michael C. Dorf has this essay online at FindLaw.
“Appeals court rehears Wal-Mart sex-bias case”: Josh Richman of The Oakland Tribune has this news update.
law.com reports that “Wal-Mart En Banc Session Packs House.”
And Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an editorial entitled “How Not to Fight Discrimination: The EEOC joins a class-action effort against Wal-Mart.”
You can access the audio of today’s rehearing en banc oral argument before an eleven-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores via this link (9.16MB Windows Media audio file)
“Justices Consider Interplay Between First Amendment and Campaign Finance Laws”: Adam Liptak will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.
Wednesday in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Justices May Soften Campaign Ad Law; Arguments Over Anti-Clinton Movie Peppered With Free-Speech Issues.”
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “‘Hillary: The Movie’: Supreme Court hears film’s challenge to campaign finance laws.”
law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “Supreme Court Appears Divided Over Hillary Clinton Movie in Campaign Finance Case.”
And this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Court Weighs Anti-Clinton Movie” (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg.
“The Supreme Court Reviews Hillary: The Movie; Prediction: 10 thumbs-ups, 8 thumbs-downs.” Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.
“Judge Keller files response to charges”: At the “Austin Legal” blog of The Austin American-Statesman, Chuck Lindell has a post that begins, “Sharon Keller, presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, this afternoon filed her response to charges that she violated her judicial duty when she refused to accept an after-hours appeal in 2007.”
You can access the response by clicking here.
“Texas Democrats’ loyalty oath legal, court says”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued today.
“Riverboat Robbery: When does a tax become an illegal ‘taking’?” Today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal contains an editorial that begins, “Illinois politics seems to be everywhere this year — and now it may be headed to the Supreme Court in the form of a lawsuit brought against the state. The case, which has ties to impeached Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, could have an important impact on the definition of a ‘taking’ under the Fifth Amendment — as well as implications for the state’s power of taxation.”
You can access the petition for writ of certiorari at this link.
“U.S. Justices Mull Easing Campaign Rules in Clinton Movie Case”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.
“N.J. Supreme Court weighs attempts by towns to strictly control sex offenders”: The Newark Star-Ledger has this news update.
“Abortion provider’s trial opens in Kansas; Dr. George Tiller faces 19 misdemeanor counts of violating the Kansas law governing late-term procedures”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.
And The Wichita Eagle reports today that “Physician says she didn’t work full-time for George Tiller.”
Access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, No. 08-205: The Court has posted it at this link.
“Court hears arguments over anti-Hillary movie”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has this report.
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Campaign films may get OK.”
Access online today’s U.S. Supreme Court opinion in an argued case: The Court today issued its ruling in Knowles v. Mirzayance, No. 07-1315.
Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. The Chief Justice and Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer, and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined in all of Justice Thomas’s opinion. And Justices Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined in all of Justice Thomas’s opinion except for Part II.
You can access the ruling at this link, and you can access the oral argument transcript at this link.
In early news coverage, The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: No new trial for Calif. convicted killer.”
NBA star Allen Iverson loses D.C. Circuit appeal as that court affirms judgment against Iverson for negligent supervision of his bodyguards in nightclub brawl: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.
Update: In news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court upholds verdict against Iverson.”
“‘Hillary: The Movie’ Opens At The Supreme Court.” This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”
“Justices hear case on sex offenders; Housing restriction brings challenges”: The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger contains this article today.
“‘Hillary: The Movie’ case spurs free speech debate.” This article appears today in The Washington Times.
And today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial entitled “Corporate Money and Campaigns.”
“Challenge to Landmark Law Worries Preservationists”: The New York Times contains this article today about a case pending before the Supreme Court of Illinois.
“Exxon Valdez oil-spill recovery still is work in progress, 20 years later”: This article appears today in The Seattle Times, along with articles headlined “One pod of whales recovers after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, other near extinction” and “Some oil that remains from the Exxon Valdez still as fresh as in ’89.”
MSNBC.com reports that “Oil plagues Sound 20 years after Exxon Valdez; Future risk assessments must look at longer impacts, recovery council says.”
Bloomberg News reports that “Exxon Valdez Ghost Lives On With Spill-Prone Ships.”
And today in The Boston Globe, Christopher Reddy has an op-ed entitled “Let’s not forget Exxon Valdez.”
“High court rejects evolution suit against Cal”: The San Francisco Chronicle contains this article today.
