"Court upholds mobile home rent controls; Ruling in a Goleta case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals says park owners' property rights are not infringed on by laws controlling how much they can charge for monthly site rentals":
Carol J. Williams has this article
today in The Los Angeles Times.
My earlier coverage of yesterday's en banc Ninth Circuit ruling appears at this link.
"Senate Confirms Nomination of Mary H. Murguia to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals":
The Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
has issued this news release
"Direct elections discussed for judges; Lawmakers like idea of voters, not merit panel, for selection process":
Howard Fischer has this article
in today's edition of the Arizona Business Gazette.
"Fertility ruling spawns new round of confusion":
Today's edition of The Toronto Globe and Mail contains an article
that begins, "A long-awaited Supreme Court ruling that takes the business of regulating the clinical world of baby-making out of Ottawa's hands has raised questions about the future of fertility treatments in Canada, and fears that the black market for human eggs and sperm will continue to thrive."
Today's edition of The Montreal Gazatte contains an article headlined "Quebec, IVF proponents praise top court ruling; Decision gestated for 20 months; Fertility expert hopes Quebec will set an example for other provinces to follow."
The Toronto Star reports that "Fertility clinics up to provinces to regulate, top court rules."
The Toronto Sun contains an article headlined "Court ruling good for patients: doctor."
The Winnipeg Free Press reports that "Court grapples with fertilization; Provinces have power over sperm, eggs."
Postmedia News reports that "Future of federal agency uncertain after Supreme Court fertility ruling."
And The Calgary Herald reports that "Alberta fertility industry to remain unregulated; Provinces responsible, says top court."
You can access yesterday's ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada at this link.
"Justices weigh election arguments":
Friday's edition of The Pacific Daily News of Guam contains an article
that begins, "The Supreme Court of Guam decided last night to hear arguments in an election challenge filed by the defeated gubernatorial campaign team before the inauguration of the governor-elect."
"Vander Plaats compares Iowa justices to teens who flee a beer party":
The Des Moines Register has this blog post
"Behind-the-scenes tour reveals Supreme Court traditions, grandeur":
Bill Mears of CNN.com has this report
Josh Gerstein is reporting:
At Politico.com, he has an article headlined "Barack Obama's plan to close Gitmo 'in shambles.'
And at his "Under the Radar" blog, he has a post titled "Obama administration readies first execution."
"Cheerleader taking free-speech suit to high court":
Bob Egelko has this article
today in The San Francisco Chronicle.
Fifth Circuit grants rehearing en banc in case raising the issue whether the law is clearly established that the First Amendment prohibits religious viewpoint discrimination at the elementary school level:
The lawsuit arises from the decision of the Plano (Tex.) Independent School District to prohibit Michaela Wade from distributing to her elementary school classmates at the annual "winter break" party pencils bearing the inscription "Jesus is the Reason for the Season."
A unanimous three-judge panel ruled -- first in late June 2010 and then by means of an amended opinion reaching the same result issued late last month -- that "it has been clear for over half a century that the First Amendment protects elementary school students from religious-viewpoint discrimination," and thus school officials were not entitled to qualified immunity.
By means of an order issued last Friday (which the Fifth Circuit posted online yesterday), the Fifth Circuit has granted rehearing en banc in the case, so stay tuned! The case may put some of the Fifth Circuit's more conservative judges in a difficult position -- are schoolchildren entitled to some degree of freedom of religious expression under well-established law, or are school officials entitled to qualified immunity on a federal civil rights claim?
Earlier coverage of the case is available from the "School Law" blog of Education Week; from Texas Lawyer's "Tex Parte Blog" in posts titled "Principals not entitled to qualified immunity in religious viewpoint discrimination case" and "Candy cane case continues with Paul Clement representing old-school amici"; and from the "Legal Clips" blog of the National School Boards Association (here and here).