"The Court ENJOINS the Commonwealth from enforcing Sections 20-45.2 and 20-45.3 of the Virginia Code and Article I, Sec. 15-A of the Virginia Constitution to the extent these laws prohibit a person from marrying another person of the same gender."
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
issued this ruling
In early news coverage, The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that "Federal judge strikes down Virginia's gay marriage ban."
Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that "Federal judge strikes down Va. ban on gay marriage."
The Virginian-Pilot has a report headlined "U.S. judge: Va. same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional."
The Associated Press has a report headlined "Judge: Va. same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional."
And Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has a blog post titled "Federal judge strikes down Virginia same-sex marriage ban."
"Sweeping ruling on guns in public":
Lyle Denniston has this post
At her "Trial Insider" blog, Pamela A. MacLean has a post titled "California Concealed Weapons Law Gutted."
And online at The Los Angeles Times, Michael McGough has an essay titled "Did the 9th Circuit Court just kill gun control?"
My earlier coverage of today's Ninth Circuit ruling appears here and here.
"Court overturns county gun permit rules; Appeals court ruled self-defense is a good enough reason to carry a concealed gun":
The San Diego Union-Tribune has this news update
Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update headlined "Court strikes California law restricting concealed weapons."
Josh Richman of The Oakland Tribune has a news update headlined "Gun control: Federal court guts California's concealed-carry rules."
The Washington Times has a news update headlined "Federal court deals gun-grabbers a blow in San Diego concealed carry ruling."
And The Associated Press reports that "Court tosses California's concealed weapons rules."
My earlier coverage of today's Ninth Circuit ruling appears at this link.
Update: At "The Volokh Conspiracy," Eugene Volokh has a post titled "What next for the Second Amendment and the right to carry guns?"
Judge Posner asserts it's time to consider eliminating the "present sense impression" and "excited utterance" exceptions to the hearsay rule: Seventh Circuit
Judge Richard A. Posner
issued an interesting concurring opinion
"How The Supreme Court Pushed Judges To Strike Down Gay Marriage Bans":
Sahil Kapur of TPM DC has this report
"We are called upon to decide whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense."
So begins the majority opinion
that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain's majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Consuelo M. Callahan joined, concludes:
The district court erred in denying the applicant's motion for summary judgment on the Second Amendment claim because San Diego County's "good cause" permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.
Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas
issued a dissenting opinion that concludes:
In dealing a needless, sweeping judicial blow to the public
safety discretion invested in local law enforcement officers and to California's carefully constructed firearm regulatory scheme, the majority opinion conflicts with Supreme Court authority, the decisions of our sister circuits, and our own circuit precedent.Paul D. Clement
argued the case for the appellants. The case was argued back in December 2012, and you can access the oral argument audio via this link
"NY court upholds conviction for video of neighbor":
The Associated Press has a report
that begins, "New York's highest court is upholding the conviction of a suburban Rochester man for videotaping his neighbor after a shower through an exterior window."
You can access today's unanimous ruling of the Court of Appeals of New York -- that state's highest court -- at this link.
"Former justice: Gag order only applies to parties in pension lawsuit."
Tom Mooney has this front page article
today in The Providence (R.I.) Journal.
"Why The Senate STILL Isn't Able To Get Anything Done Even After The 'Nuclear Option'":
Ian Millhiser has this post
today at "ThinkProgress."
On today's broadcast of NPR's "Morning Edition":
Carrie Johnson had an audio segment titled "In Security Cases, Feds No Longer Get Benefit Of The Doubt
And Peter Overby had an audio segment titled "'Citizens United' Critics Fight Money With Money."
So you thought your appellate oral argument was contentious?
Yesterday, attorney Matthew A. Kairis
-- head of the litigation section at the Columbus, Ohio office of Jones Day -- had the "pleasure" of arguing Univ. of Notre Dame
v. Kathleen Sebelius
before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
consisting of Circuit Judges Richard A. Posner
, Joel M. Flaum
, and David F. Hamilton
You can listen to the audio of the oral argument via this link.
Putting it mildly, Judge Posner was at his cantankerous best during the oral argument, at one point yelling at Kairis "You answer my question!" Judge Posner also told Notre Dame's lawyer several times "Don't fence with me" when Judge Posner thought that Kairis was not answering a question directly enough. And at one point, Judge Posner told Kairis "If you don't cooperate with me, I'm not going to let you continue your argument."
Judge Posner never did carry through with his threat to shut down Kairis's argument, so it's not clear whether that would have required the concurrence of another panel member. In Judge Posner's defense, at one point even Judge Hamilton seemed a little exasperated with Kairis's failure to directly respond to a question, reminding the advocate that the lawyers had already inflicted a great deal of reading material on the judges communicating whatever the lawyers wanted to say, and now it was the judges' opportunity to have the lawyers address the judges' many questions and concerns.
Several times during the oral argument, Judge Posner told Kairis "Please don't interrupt me." Some of those times, however, it was Judge Posner who was interrupting Kairis, who then failed to stop talking. Instead of trying to prove the point "You don't interrupt me; rather, I interrupt you," maybe Judge Posner could have better communicated his message by telling the advocate, "When I start talking, you must stop talking."
Yesterday, I had this post collecting news coverage of the oral argument.
"Ending ''Gay Conversion' for Good":
Jacob M. Victor has this op-ed
today in The New York Times.
"Kagan: 'Too Soon' for a Bobblehead."
Michelle Olsen has this post
today at her "Appellate Daily" blog.
"Supreme Court Weighs 'Qualified Immunity' for Cops Who Use Deadly Force to End Car Chases; Aggressive police tactics go on trial at the high court":
Damon Root has this essay
online at Reason.
"Ky. gay marriage ruling looks to precedents":
Brett Barrouquere of The Associated Press has this report
"How the Case of an Amish Farmer Could Doom Hobby Lobby in Court: It doesn't matter whether an employer is secular or religious, non-profit or for-profit; The Supreme Court's precedents show that the government's interest in nationwide programs trumps all."
Law professor Garrett Epps
has this essay
online today at The Atlantic.
"Obama Surveillance Suit by Rand Paul Spurs Lawyer Fight":
Andrew Zajac and Phil Milford of Bloomberg News have this report
"Interest Groups Gear Up For Next Supreme Court Vacancy":
NPR has this report
"NRA gets behind NJ man's lawsuit challenging state's gun carry restrictions, group says":
The Newark Star-Ledger has this article
And The Associated Press reports that "19 states to help challenge New Jersey gun law."
"Justice Thomas comments spark fresh debate on race":
Bill Mears of CNN.com has this news analysis
The Washington Times has an article headlined "Black Dem on Clarence Thomas: White wife OK, but justice is 'Uncle Tom.'"
And online at The New York Times, columnist Charles M. Blow has an essay titled "Thomas Speaks ... Blindly About Race."