|
|
|
Saturday, May 31, 2003
"Colleagues mourn U.S. Judge Waldman; Cancer kills 'effective, thoughtful' jurist": The Philadelphia Daily News today contains this report. And you can access here the obituary that will be published in tomorrow's edition of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Posted at 22:54 by Howard Bashman
"The Bloody Crossroads of Grammar and Politics": The Week in Review section of tomorrow's edition of The New York Times contains this essay by Stanford linguist Geoffrey Nunberg. Posted at 22:37 by Howard Bashman In news and commentary pertaining to pending federal judicial nominations: The Casper Star-Tribune reported here on Thursday that "Myers' judicial nod turns controversial." World magazine contains an article in its June 7, 2003 issue entitled "Tyranny of the minority." And The Catholic News Service offers an article entitled "Law school dean ponders perils for Catholics in public office." Posted at 19:45 by Howard Bashman In news and commentary pertaining to the Supreme Court of the United States: The Hartford Courant today contains an article entitled "Highest Court, Higher Stakes; Prospect Of Vacancy Fuels Speculation About Supreme Court's Direction." And Michael Kirkland, UPI Legal Affairs Correspondent, has an essay entitled "It's been a bumpy ride." Posted at 19:41 by Howard Bashman "Lawrence and Garner v Texas": Steve Sanders, a student at the University of Michigan Law School, has this article in the current edition of the Michigan Bar Journal. Posted at 19:28 by Howard Bashman The Oyez Web site is off-line: Except for the photo of Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg riding an elephant together, which happens to be one of my favorite parts of Oyez. A message states: "At around 6:30 AM yesterday, the Oyez website suffered a severe hardware failure that had brought the Oyez server down. We have identified the problem and are working with our vendors and partners to correct the problem as soon as possible. We estimate that the site will be up and running again either late Monday or Tuesday." (Thanks to Adam White for the pointer via email.) Posted at 19:21 by Howard Bashman "Ashcroft's Statement on Eric Rudolph": Here, via The AP. Posted at 16:29 by Howard Bashman "Rehnquist, O'Connor Mull Retirement": Anne Gearan of The Associated Press has this report. Posted at 16:27 by Howard Bashman "Why should insurance pay for contraceptives?" Stuart Buck has this op-ed in today's edition of The Dallas Morning News. Posted at 12:59 by Howard Bashman This evening on C-SPAN's "America and the Courts": It's U.S. Supreme Court hopefuls week, as two current and one former, successful candidate to serve on the Court are featured: "This week, commencement addresses by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales & Calif. Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown. Also, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer reads Dr. Seuss's 'Oh the Places You'll Go' to 4th-graders in the Supreme Court Library." If you miss the program on TV, you can view it online via this link perhaps as early as tomorrow. Posted at 11:24 by Howard Bashman "Guardian is refused for fetus": Today's edition of The Orlando Sentinel contains this report. Posted at 10:04 by Howard Bashman "[T]he defendant exposed his '"thong" clad buttocks.'" Yesterday the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issued a decision in which one of the central questions presented was "did the defendant 'have fair notice that exposure of "thong" clad buttocks could be prosecuted as an open and gross lewdness offense.'" The court's decision explains: Pointing to the number of people who are seen wearing "thongs" on public beaches, the defendant argues that unless limited to exposure of genitalia, our statute outlawing lewd and lascivious conduct will be cast adrift in the "shifting community notions of good taste." A woman revealing her knees in public in 1890 may have offended the then community notions of good taste. But the issue then, as now, is not whether a defendant's conduct offends "good taste," but whether the conduct is such that it causes alarm or shock. Today, society may tolerate far greater displays of nudity, including the exposure of genitalia on public beaches. But the defendant does not argue that the crime of "open and gross lewd and lascivious behavior" has become obsolete such that all public displays of nudity, no matter how alarming or shocking, must be tolerated. In his view, it is simply a matter of degree: exposure of genitalia, but not breasts or buttocks, may be prosecuted. We see no reason to restrict the definition of open and gross lewdness in the manner he urges, and have no difficulty in concluding that a fact finder could find that the exposure of buttocks may in some circumstances alarm or shock in violation of [the state law in question].You can access the complete decision at this link. Posted at 09:55 by Howard Bashman In Saturday's newspapers: The New York Times reports here that "Florida Repeals 'Scarlet Letter' Adoption Law." Adam Liptak reports that "Court Upholds Man's Firing in Flag Case." You can access here an article entitled "For Senate Parliamentarian, Great Power but a Sensitive Constituency." An editorial is entitled "Federal Persecution." And Jack Bass has an op-ed entitled "How the G.O.P. Created Affirmative Action." The Los Angeles Times reports here that "Florida Ends 'Scarlet Letter' Adoption Law; The state had required women putting children up for adoption to publish their sexual histories in newspapers to notify the fathers." An article reports that "Report Expected to Criticize Post-9/11 Treatment of Foreigners." In news from California, "Prosecutors Seek to Block Appeal by Luster; State attorneys say the fugitive, who fled in the midst of his Ventura County date-rape trial, has no right to contest his conviction." An editorial is entitled "Bad Fix for Junk Lawsuits." Michael McGrorty has an op-ed entitled "One Word From Librarians That Speaks Volumes." And letters to the editor run under the headings "Erosion of Civil Liberties in the U.S."; "Making Jury System Work"; and "Copyright Act Revisions." The Washington Post contains an article entitled "Judge: Iran Behind '83 Beirut Bombing; Ruling Allows Families of U.S. Troops to Collect Damages." An article reports that "Md. Judges May Cut Discretion; Leader Says Panel Would Limit Time to Shorten Sentences." You can access here an article that begins, "People across the Washington region were startled yesterday by the appearance of a glowing orange ball of fire that rose in the eastern sky and moved slowly westward." An editorial asks "Who Can Own Media?" And an op-ed by Jay Mathews is entitled "Sources of Accuracy." The Washington Times reports here that "Texas school financing under fire." An article reports that "Democrats shunning gun control." And in local news, "Sniper jurors to see shots' effects." The Boston Globe reports here that "SJC uncovers a legal definition." The article reports on a ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in which that court explained, "'we agree with the defendant that he was not provided with fair notice that deliberately exposing his thong-clad buttocks may be illegal." And finally for now, you can access here an article entitled "Federal court ruling alters Maine salmon farming tactics." Posted at 09:20 by Howard Bashman "Jay C. Waldman, 58, federal judge": Today's edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer contains this obituary. Posted at 09:19 by Howard Bashman "Possible arrest in 1996 Olympic bombing case": CNN.com has this report. Posted at 08:54 by Howard Bashman Friday, May 30, 2003
In the days ahead: Word is that my op-ed will be appearing in The Los Angeles Times either on Sunday or Monday. When I know for sure, you will too. Some more details are available here.
In other news, I have received the answers my June 2003 installment of "20 questions for the appellate judge," and once again you have my word that you don't want to miss it. The questions and answers should appear online here just after midnight on the morning of Monday, June 2, 2003. Posted at 23:47 by Howard Bashman "Democrats to Court Nominees: Only White Males Need Apply." David Freddoso has this essay in the June 2, 2003 issue of Human Events Online. Posted at 23:39 by Howard Bashman Available online at law.com: Tony Mauro reports that "Supreme Court May Take Takings Case." Shannon P. Duffy reports that "Federal Judge Jay C. Waldman Dies." And yesterday Duffy reported that "Creditors' Committees May Pursue Derivative Avoidance Actions; En banc 3rd Circuit panel overturns controversial ruling." In other news, "Judge to Jurors: Thou Shalt Not Consult Scripture; Using Bibles and notes from Leviticus leads to a death sentence reversal." In news from New York, you can access here an article entitled "Court to Consider Lead Paint, Anti-Stalking Laws" and here an article entitled "Judge Orders Hearing on FBI Warrants in Child Porn Case." Finally for now, John Hasnas has a commentary entitled "Too Much Official Power." Posted at 23:22 by Howard Bashman The Associated Press is reporting: You can access here an article entitled "Post-Sept. 11 Detainee Sweep Criticized"; here "Graham Wants Sept. 11 Report More Public"; and here "Justice Backs Plant Workers in Lawsuit." Posted at 21:02 by Howard Bashman "U.S. District Judge Jay C. Waldman Dies": The Associated Press has this report, which confirms the sad news that I reported here earlier today. Posted at 20:55 by Howard Bashman The Fifth Circuit serves up a double helping of machineguns: Back on April 4, 2003, I wrote in a post you can access here: Fifth Circuit creates circuit split over whether Castillo v. United States applies retroactively on collateral review: In Castillo, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a twenty-five-year sentence enhancement that applied for carrying a machinegun -- instead of an ordinary firearm -- during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime gave rise to a separate, aggravated crime. Accordingly, the indictment had to charge the carrying of a machinegun, and the jury, rather than the trial judge, had to find the existence of that element.In retrospect, perhaps it was foolish of me to gloss over the possibility that the Fifth Circuit might grant rehearing en banc. But, today we learn it wasn't foolish after all, as the Fifth Circuit entered an order denying rehearing en banc over the dissenting votes of six judges. In a separate ruling also issued today, a three-judge panel examined whether a defendant's "prior conviction for the unlawful possession of a machine gun [qualifies] as a conviction for a 'crime of violence' under sec. 4B1.2(a) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines." The panel's unanimous, per curiam opinion goes on to note: [T]here is no case law addressing the issue whether the unlawful possession of a machine gun is a "crime of violence" for purposes of determining a base offense level under sec. 4B1.2(a) of the Guidelines. This lacuna contrasts starkly with the jurisprudentially ubiquitous sawed-off shotgun, the unlawful possession of which has been adjudicated by numerous courts as constituting a "crime of violence." Yet, we have located no published court decisions addressing the particular issue raised in this case: Whether a prior conviction for the unlawful possession of a machine gun constitutes a conviction for a "crime of violence," as this term is defined by sec. 4B1.2(a) of the Guidelines.The panel concluded that the defendant's earlier conviction for unlawful possession of a machinegun did constitute a conviction for a "crime of violence." Posted at 19:15 by Howard Bashman "Too much communication for FCC: FCC can't handle the flood of e-mails and phone calls regarding Monday's media ownership vote." CNN.com has this report. Posted at 19:10 by Howard Bashman "How I Learned to Love Quotas": Jeffrey Rosen has this article in this upcoming Sunday's issue of The New York Times Magazine. The article begins, "Not long ago, I had an unexpected opportunity to explain to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor why I've changed my mind about affirmative action." Posted at 17:19 by Howard Bashman "Dole, Duncan lunch": The third item in this article published in today's issue of The Raleigh News and Observer reports that "U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole had lunch Thursday in Raleigh with Allyson Duncan, a lawyer with Kilpatrick Stockton and one of President Bush's two North Carolina nominees to the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals." The second item also may be of interest, because it seems to say that a member of the U.S. House of Representatives believes that President Bush, by signing an executive order, could overrule a recent decision in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that pre-supper prayers at a state university violate the U.S. Constitution. Posted at 17:09 by Howard Bashman "Veil of Litigation: A Muslim woman fights the DMV": Eric Peters has this essay today at National Review Online. Posted at 17:00 by Howard Bashman Employee fired for flying the flag: The Confederate flag, that is. Today a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a very interesting decision in which the majority's opinion begins: Matthew Dixon, an employee of Coburg Dairy, Inc., was asked by his employer to remove two Confederate flag stickers from his tool box after an African-American co-worker complained. Dixon refused to remove the stickers, and Coburg, relying on the company's anti-harassment policy, fired Dixon. Dixon then filed suit in South Carolina state court, alleging wrongful discharge and a "Violation of Constitutional Rights." Coburg removed the case to federal court on the ground that Dixon's complaint necessarily depended on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Dixon filed a motion to remand, which the district court denied. The district court then granted Coburg's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. Dixon appeals both of the district court's rulings. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm in part and reverse in part.Circuit Judge Roger L. Gregory delivered the majority opinion. The other two judges on the panel were U.S. District Judges sitting by designation. You can access both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion at this link. Posted at 15:25 by Howard Bashman The Associated Press is reporting: Anne Gearan reports here that "High Court Nears Statement on Race Cases." Yes, it's again that time of year when it's appropriate to begin focusing on the finish line, so as a bonus The AP also provides a list of "Major Issues Awaiting Supreme Court." In other news, you can access here an article entitled "Judge Blames Iran for Deadly 1983 Blast" (plus, access the opinion here); here an article entitled "Florida Repeals 'Scarlet Letter Law'"; and here an article entitled "State Nichols Trial to Start March 2004." Posted at 14:52 by Howard Bashman Some very sad news from Philadelphia: Federal District Judge Jay C. Waldman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has died. President Bush announced just over one month ago that Judge Waldman would be nominated to fill the vacancy created earlier this month on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit when Chief Judge Edward R. Becker took senior status. Posted at 14:06 by Howard Bashman "Pickering says his father's fight for post bigger than one person": The Associated Press has this report. Posted at 13:16 by Howard Bashman "Today's Senate Confirmation Battles and the Role of the Federal Judiciary": Ninth Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain delivered this Commencement Address to the Class of 2003 of the Lewis and Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon. (Via "The Volokh Conspiracy.") Judge O'Scannlain discussed some of the same themes in his "20 questions" interview conducted here in March 2003. Posted at 12:26 by Howard Bashman "Woman lawyer becomes first Hindu on US religious body": The Daily Times of Pakistan provides this report in its issue of Saturday, May 31, 2003. You can access the Web site of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom at this link. Posted at 11:57 by Howard Bashman "Attorney: Woman's Pregnancy Terminated": The Associated Press has this report from Miami. Posted at 11:40 by Howard Bashman "Texas Court Revives School Funding Case": The Associated Press has this report. You can access the ruling, which the Supreme Court of Texas issued yesterday, here (majority opinion), here (concurring opinion), and here (dissenting opinion). In local news coverage of the ruling, The Houston Chronicle reports here that "School finance lawsuit revived; Justices return case to trial court"; The Dallas Morning News reports here that "Court adds pressure on 'Robin Hood'"; The Austin American-Statesman reports here that "School finance lawsuit OK'd"; The Star-Telegram reports here that "Rich districts will get their day in court"; and The Texas City Sun, which has been serving the Galveston County Mainland since 1912, reports here that "Robin Hood sent back to court." Posted at 10:16 by Howard Bashman Op-ed update: My op-ed on the subject of "judicial insubordination," a topic that I've touched on from time to time recently here at "How Appealing" beginning with this post from one week ago today, will be appearing someday soon in The Los Angeles Times. When I learn exactly when it is scheduled to be in that newspaper, I'll be sure to let you know. Posted at 10:10 by Howard Bashman "20 questions for the appellate judge" update: The next installment of "20 questions for the appellate judge" is due to appear online at "How Appealing" on the morning of Monday, June 2, 2003. The interviewee is a judge serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit who was nominated to that court by President Clinton. And, if my information is correct, this judge opposes a division of the Ninth Circuit. The interview should make for interesting reading. Looking ahead, the appellate judges who have agreed to participate in the "20 questions" feature in July, August, and September are all assigned to federal appellate courts located on the east coast. July's interviewee is a senior circuit judge on a court located in the northeast. August's interviewee serves on a federal appellate court in the south. And September's interviewee serves on a court in Washington, DC. As always, you can access all prior installments of the "20 questions" feature at one convenient location, "How Appealing's 20 questions site." Posted at 09:56 by Howard Bashman Elsewhere in today's edition of The New York Times: You can access here an article entitled "U.S. Cautiously Begins to Seize Millions in Foreign Banks" and here an article entitled "Lawyers Accuse U.S. of Deceiving Colombians in Extradition." An editorial is entitled "Deportation Behind Closed Doors." Today's installment of Clyde Haberman's NYC column is entitled "Cage-Rattling for Reform of Drug Laws." And Jacob Sullum has an op-ed entitled "When Holding a Party Is a Crime." Posted at 09:48 by Howard Bashman "Fulton school case closed; Judge OKs desegregation settlement": This article appears in today's edition of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Posted at 09:43 by Howard Bashman "Judge holds fate of veil": Today's edition of The Orlando Sentinel contains this report. Posted at 09:33 by Howard Bashman Elsewhere in Friday's newspapers: In The Los Angeles Times, Henry Weinstein reports that "Pair Who Claim to Be Spies Can Sue CIA, Court Rules; The unidentified couple say the agency backed out of a deal to support them after they were brought to the U.S. from an Eastern bloc nation." An article from Bloomberg News is entitled "DVD Group Seeks Reversal of Ruling on Decoding Tool; Industry argues posting of decryption program should not be protected by the 1st Amendment." You can access here an article entitled "Suit Targets U.S. Border Vigilantes; Civil rights groups claim illegal immigrants were robbed and assaulted on a Texas ranch. Backers of patrols defend efforts, deny any wrongdoing." From Florida comes a report that "Court Battle Over Veil Pits Religion Against Security; Florida Muslim wants to keep face covered for driver's license photo. State cites public safety." An article reports that "Microsoft and AOL Settle Netscape Suit; The software maker will pay $750 million in an agreement seen as a victory for both sides." Bloomberg News reports that "Aetna Wins Initial OK for Settlement." In op-eds, James D. Zirin writes that "Only Outsiders Can Get the Inside Story"; Marc Cooper has an essay entitled "Stampeding for a 'Connor Peterson Law'; Rights for the unborn require full deliberation"; and Leon E. Wynter has an essay entitled "A No-Win Game of Wannabe: Until they mess up, people like Jayson Blair aren't even seen as 'black.'" And letters to the editor appear under the heading "U.S. Supreme Court Undercuts Miranda Law." The Washington Times reports here that "Bush appellate judge picks being OK'd at typical pace." In news from the DC-area sniper case, "Death penalty charge upheld." An article reports that "AOL, Microsoft to work together." And in op-eds, Walter Williams has an essay entitled "Affirmative-action grading?"; Diana West has an essay entitled "Unveiling the license to drive"; and Deborah Simmons has an essay entitled "Maryland's dirty little secret." The Boston Globe reports here that "Sentencing law targets US judges in Massachusetts." An article reports that "Media giants circle: Herald, Channel 7 seen as prey if FCC eases rules." In other local news, you can access here an article entitled "Charitable cap is upheld again"; here "Health fund dispute goes to SJC"; and here "'Per se' law on drunken driving OK'd." Finally for now, USA Today reports here that "Autopsy information raises questions in Peterson slaying; Some speculate about defense ploy." Posted at 06:25 by Howard Bashman Today's FindLaw commentators: Vikram David Amar has an essay entitled "The Missing Piece in the 2002-03 Supreme Court Term: The Forgotten Fourth Amendment, and Why It Will Matter Greatly in the War on Terror." And you can access here Paul Horwitz's review of Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner's new book, "Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy." Posted at 06:18 by Howard Bashman In Friday's newspapers: In The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports here that "Ohio Case Considers Whether Abuse Victim Can Violate Own Protective Order." In news from Los Angeles, "Illegal Immigrants File Suit Against Vigilante Patrols." And in business news, "AOL Time Warner and Microsoft End a Bitter Rivalry." The Washington Post reports here that "White House Seeks to Curb Rights Cases From Abroad; U.S. Fears Effect On Diplomatic Ties." An article reports that "N.H. Approves Abortion Consent Bill." Of course, by "consent" the headline writer actually means "notification." An article reports that "Muhammad Portrayed As 'Killing Team' Captain; Judge Declines to Dismiss Murder Charge in Sniper Case." In business news, "Microsoft, AOL Deal Sets Up Alliance; Firms to Work on Media Technology." Michael Kinsley has an op-ed entitled "Rehnquist's Surprise" (or access the Slate version, with an image of a pregnant Chief Justice(?!?), here). And Ted Turner has an op-ed entitled "Monopoly or Democracy?" Finally for now, The Christian Science Monitor contains an article entitled "Are bigger voices better voices? With FCC expected to relax ownership rules Monday, the media industry faces static from a public wary of consolidation." Posted at 00:06 by Howard Bashman Thursday, May 29, 2003
"Statement of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist On Receipt of ABA-FBA White Paper on Judicial Pay": You can access the statement here, via the U.S. Supreme Court's Web site. And you can access my post from yesterday, which provides links to the white paper and to other related items, here.
Posted at 22:44 by Howard Bashman
"Top Calif. Court Reviews DVD Decryption Case": Reuters offers this coverage. You can access additional coverage here from c|net News.com ("Arguments made in DVD-cracking case") and here from The Recorder ("High Court Hears Clash of Speech, Trade Secrets Law"). Posted at 22:14 by Howard Bashman "Microsoft and AOL Time Warner Settle Antitrust Suit": The New York Times provides this report. Additionally, The Associated Press reports here that "Microsoft, AOL Time Warner Settle Lawsuit"; Reuters reports here that "AOL, Microsoft Settle for $750 Million"; and United Press International reports here that "Microsoft to pay AOL $750 million." Posted at 22:06 by Howard Bashman "Microsoft to pay AOL $750 million": c|net News.com has this report. Posted at 17:34 by Howard Bashman The Associated Press is reporting: You can access here an article entitled "N.H. Abortion Bill Heads Toward Approval" and here an article entitled "Judge Issues Sniper Case Gag Order." Posted at 17:08 by Howard Bashman "'American Idol' is the wrong model for picking judges": Yesterday's edition of The Philadelphia Daily News contained this op-ed by two leaders of an organization that has long opposed judicial elections in Pennsylvania. Posted at 16:47 by Howard Bashman "4th Circuit balance": Tuesday's edition of The Baltimore Sun contained this editorial, which begins "The Bush administration should withdraw the nomination of Claude A. Allen to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for many reasons...." Posted at 16:44 by Howard Bashman Ready for new episodes of "Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law"? Well, they are ready for you. The Knoxville News-Sentinel has details here ("Verdict: 'Toon attorney appeals") and here ("Obscure superhero courts new fame"). Readers too serious to be interested in a cartoon about a bird/man lawyer are invited to peruse today's en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in a case involving Rule 11 sanctions against an attorney. And the original three-judge panel ruling in that case remains available here. Posted at 15:40 by Howard Bashman Spy vs Spy: Today a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision that begins: Jane and John Doe -- fictitious names, adopted for this litigation for reasons that will appear -- assert that they performed espionage activities on behalf of the United States against a former Eastern bloc country. The Central Intelligence Agency (the "CIA"), they say, assured them that it would provide assistance in resettling in the United States as well as lifetime financial and other support. According to the Does, the CIA has now reneged on its obligation of support.By a vote of 2-1, the panel ruled that the case could go forward in a federal district court in Seattle, Washington. You can access the opinion at this link. Posted at 13:31 by Howard Bashman The Associated Press is reporting: You can access here an article entitled "Calif. Ballot Measure Would Bar Race Data"; here "Nebraska Lawmaker Proposes War With Iowa"; here "Ochoa Conviction Gratifies Drug Agents"; here "Suspected Terror Group's Assets Blocked"; and here "Philly Scouts Promise No Discrimination." Posted at 13:10 by Howard Bashman "Ambulance Chasers Under Attack; Opening arguments against trial lawyers": Ronald Bailey has this essay online at Reason. Posted at 13:10 by Howard Bashman Third Circuit issues eagerly-awaited en banc ruling in Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Cybergenics Corp. v. Chinery: The original three-judge panel's ruling, which reportedly caused great upset in the organized bankruptcy bar, has been repudiated by the en banc court in a vote of 7-4. You can access the en banc decision released just moments ago at this link. Posted at 11:07 by Howard Bashman Elsewhere in Thursday's newspapers: The Los Angeles Times contains an article entitled "A Historic Church, and Debate Just as Old: U.S. policy is reversed with a decision to use public funds to repair a Boston landmark." And in news pertaining to the University of California, "Ban on Sex With Students Advances." The Boston Globe contains a blurb from The Associated Press entitled "Judge bars online ID of sex offenders." Finally, The Washington Times contains an editorial entitled "A deregulated media is better." And Mona Charen has an op-ed about the University of Michigan racial preference in student admissions cases entitled "Sensitive ground at a high cost." Posted at 10:56 by Howard Bashman Reuters is reporting: You can access here an article entitled "Oregon Debates Kidney Transplant for Death Row Inmate" and here an article entitled "Pentagon Reports New Guantanamo Suicide Attempts." Posted at 10:43 by Howard Bashman "Masters of Obstruction: The Estrada roadblock continues." Mario H. Lopez has this essay today at National Review Online. Posted at 10:16 by Howard Bashman The Associated Press is reporting: You can access here an article entitled "Ex-Providence Mayor Appeals Conviction"; here "Memos: FBI Tried to Avoid Death Hearings"; and here "Colleges Settle Dispute Over 'South' Name." Posted at 10:16 by Howard Bashman Oopsy-daisy: Okay, I'll be the first to admit that I really enjoyed reading Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski's dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc in the in Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Consumers Union product disparagement case. Here's a sample: Judge Graber also complains that CU said the Samurai rolls over "easily" when, in fact, it had to be "coaxed." Concurrence at 6512. She apparently fears that readers might assume the Samurai rolled over with no "coaxing" at all. But no one could be so misled. Even tremendously unsafe vehicles roll over only in extreme maneuvers. No one reading that the Samurai rolls over "easily" would infer it routinely flops over with no human intervention.You can access all of Judge Kozinski's dissenting opinion at this link. And you can access my earlier coverage of that ruling, and of the denial of rehearing en banc, here and here. Posted at 10:00 by Howard Bashman More evidence that librarians love "How Appealing": Thanks to the Internet Home of the Fifth Circuit Library -- yup, the library of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit -- for including a link to "How Appealing" on its Web page listing "general legal research sites." Posted at 09:54 by Howard Bashman "Lott finds new role and goals in Senate; Former majority leader criticizes GOP tax cut, takes aim at filibusters": Today's edition of The Clarion-Ledger contains this report. Elsewhere, MotherJones.com contains an item entitled "Picking Through Pickering's Past." And Greg Yardley has an essay at FrontPage magazine entitled "Alliance Against Justice." Posted at 07:01 by Howard Bashman In Thursday's newspapers: The New York Times contains a news analysis from Linda Greenhouse entitled "Steady Rationale at Court Despite Apparent Bend." You can access here an article entitled "Electronic Order in the Court." From Miami comes news that "Colombian Drug Figure Is Guilty in U.S. Dealing." An article reports that "Utah Officials Look for Firing Squad." In local news, "Let Independent Panels Choose Judges, Mayor Says." And an editorial is entitled "Updating Media Constraints." Today's edition of The Washington Post contains an article entitled "Federal Judicial Pay Called Too Low; Two Groups Say Erosion Leads To Talent Drain." In The Christian Science Monitor, an article reports that "Redistricting: the wars get more frequent; States like Texas look to redraw maps every two years instead of every 10." An editorial is entitled "Rehnquist's Power Bar." And an op-ed by Andrew Reding is entitled "Beyond gerrymandering and Texas posses: US electoral reform." Posted at 06:33 by Howard Bashman Wednesday, May 28, 2003
U.S. Supreme Court round-up for Tuesday, May 27, 2003: Yesterday was a day that watchers of the Supreme Court of the United States will likely remember for quite some time, and not merely because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit managed to gain an affirmance to accompany two reversals. For one thing, we learned that the Court's recent, and quite controversial, Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence has a stopping point. Whether the stopping point is logical or not academics will debate for quite some time. For another thing, yesterday may have marked the first time in the Court's history where the Justice who had the honor of announcing the judgment of the Court in a horribly splintered decision issued an opinion in which a majority of the Court failed to join in any respect, while another Justice issued an opinion in which a single paragraph constituted the "Opinion of the Court." And now, on to the details.
1. Question: What happens when the U.S. Senate decides to confirm one of the principal architects and most successful advocates in support of the U.S. Supreme Court's State's rights jurisprudence to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit? Answer: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor decide to abandon ship. So, Jeffrey S. Sutton, your presence is already sorely missed by your colleagues in the appellate litigation trenches. And if only you had participated, your opponents could have attacked you as opposed to the concept of family members taking time off to tend to the needs of one another. But perhaps I digress. Yesterday, the Court delivered its long-awaited ruling in Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs, No. 01-1368 (U.S. May 27, 2003). At issue was whether Congress had the power to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment immunity of States in suits for damages alleging violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. For the past several years, any mention of the terms "Eleventh Amendment," "attempted congressional abrogation of immunity from suit," "State's rights," and "damages" in the same paragraph sufficed to cause the Chief Justice and Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas to join together to strike down the law in question insofar as it sought to infringe on a State's precious sovereignty. But those cases were different, it turns out, because they didn't involve proper legislative efforts to enforce the equal protection clause's prohibition of racial or gender based discrimination. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined. The Chief explained that traditionally, the burden of being the family caregiver in times of need fell disproportionately on women. As a result, employers would, to the extent they could get away with it, prefer to hire males, who could be counted on to have work as a priority over the needs of family members. By passing the Family and Medical Leave Act, Congress acted to level the playing field to a great extent, allowing both genders the right to take time away from work to care for family members in need. Under this law, a male is just as likely as a female to drop everything to care for a sickly close relative, and thus the incentive an employer might otherwise have to hire males instead of females disappears, lions sleep with lambs, and swords are beaten into plowshares. In any event, what allowed the Chief Justice and Justice O'Connor to abandon their three, more hard-core usual federalism buddies on the right was the fact that a sex-based classification motivated the FMLA, and thus Congress has more power to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity than when it's merely seeking to help out the aged, the infirm, or the disabled. Before wrapping-up the majority opinion, the Chief notes that the only damages available under the FMLA are actual monetary losses, permitting state treasuries to almost breathe a sigh of relief. The Court's ruling was a big win for the Ninth Circuit, whose judgment the Court affirmed. A look at the Ninth Circuit's opinion in the case reveals that Circuit Judge Marsha S. Berzon deserves the credit for anticipating the rationale that proved dispositive yesterday. Justice David H. Souter wrote a one paragraph concurring opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg and Breyer joined, to remind us that he still feels nothing but total disdain for all of those Eleventh Amendment cases in which he was on the losing end, and he doesn't plan to change his mind about that any time soon. And Justice John Paul Stevens wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment in which he again advanced the bold concept that the Eleventh Amendment should be understood to mean merely what it says, and such an understanding causes it not to apply to this case. Apply the Eleventh Amendment to mean what it says!!! What fun would that be? The unfortunate task of dissenting from today's decision fell to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, although true to form Justice Antonin Scalia couldn't resist throwing a few punches in a short separate dissent. Justice Kennedy's dissent, in essence, was the majority opinion we would have seen had the Chief and Justice O'Connor not jumped ship. In Justice Kennedy's view, the evidentiary record before Congress simply didn't justify abrogation of the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity. If anything, a majority of the States deserved praise for voluntarily adopting family leave programs long before the federal government got around to legislating on the subject. And, Justice Kennedy noted in closing, in his view State's would still be required to comply with the FMLA, but individual plaintiffs wouldn't be able to sue States to recover damages for violations of the law. If the decision in Hibbs proves anything, it demonstrates that it will be impossible to replace either the Chief Justice or Justice O'Connor with individuals who will vote precisely like them in every case that the Court will hear. 2. Oliverio Martinez was in an altercation with police from which his bullet-ridden body emerged blinded and paralyzed. While hospital emergency room staff was working to keep him alive, police officer Ben Chavez began conducting a hostile interrogation. Martinez, who did not receive any Miranda warnings, was none too pleased with the questioning, and after surviving the incident brought a federal civil rights suit against Chavez in which Martinez alleged that Chavez's conduct violated Martinez's rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Officer Chavez asked the trial court to dismiss the claims on the basis of qualified immunity, but the trial court refused. Chavez thereafter appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the denial of qualified immunity. The Ninth Circuit ruled that Martinez had valid claims under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, although that court's Fourteenth Amendment holding was largely dependent on the existence of a valid Fifth Amendment claim. Yesterday the Supreme Court announced its decision in Chavez v. Martinez, No. 01-1444 (U.S. May 27, 2003), which had been the longest-pending case on the Court's docket. Unfortunately, the case should have been pending a bit longer to allow the Justices to sort out more clearly precisely what the Court's decision happens to be. But, I'll try my best to explain what can be discerned from the six separate opinions in the case, out of which only a single paragraph represents the "Opinion of the Court." Justice Clarence Thomas announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which the Chief Justice, Justice O'Connor, and Justice Scalia joined holding that Chavez did not violate Martinez's rights under the Fifth Amendment. In a nutshell, Martinez's Fifth Amendment rights would only have been violated if his unlawfully obtained statements had been used against him in a criminal prosecution. In fact, however, he never was charged with a crime. Justice O'Connor, for reasons unknown, did not join in that portion of Justice Thomas's opinion which concluded that Martinez had no valid, freestanding Fourteenth Amendment claim. Where Justice O'Connor stands on the Fourteenth Amendment claim remains a mystery, although word is she plans to write a book upon retiring from the Court explaining precisely where she stands on the issue and why her vote was lost in the shuffle. Justice Souter, joined only by Justice Breyer, issued an opinion concurring in the judgment in which he agreed that Martinez's Fifth Amendment claim failed. But then, joined also by Justices Stevens, Kennedy, and Ginsburg, Justice Souter delivered the only paragraph in all the many pages of opinions that constituted a true "Opinion of the Court": Whether Martinez may pursue a claim of liability for a substantive due process violation is thus an issue that should be addressed on remand, along with the scope and merits of any such action that may be found open to him.Profound, isn't it? Justice Scalia issued an opinion concurring in the judgment in part in which he chided Justice Souter for failing to address on the merits the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim, but then agreed with Justice Thomas that the claim is meritless and added his own view that the claim is likely waived as well. Justice Stevens issued a short opinion in which he disagreed with the dismissal of Martinez's Fifth Amendment claim but agreed with keeping the substantive due process claim alive for further consideration on remand. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined in full by Justice Stevens and in part by Justice Ginsburg, dissented from the Court's dismissal of Martinez's Fifth Amendment claim. Justice Kennedy would have held that a valid Fifth Amendment claim existed, but he ended up voting with the other four Justices to keep the substantive due process claim alive to create a controlling judgment of the Court. Finally, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, no doubt aware that it is the rare case that produces six separate opinions, ensures that this case qualifies by writing a short separate partial concurrence and partial dissent which opines that the Ninth Circuit got the result absolutely right. Hmm, maybe now the Ninth Circuit won't feel so bad about the Opinion of the Court that Justice Ginsburg also delivered yesterday in which she reversed the Ninth Circuit 9-0. 3. Under "the treating physician rule," treating physicians rule. If a disability claimant's own doctor supports the claim of disability, then the party deciding whether to pay disability benefits has to come up with some especially persuasive reasons to turn down the claim. In the absence of such a rule, however, a treating physician's opinion is not necessarily entitled to more weight than the view of any other doctor who has seen the claimant. In social security benefits cases, the treating physician rule applies based on regulations that the Commissioner of Social Security adopted. The question presented in Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, No. 02-469 (U.S. May 27, 2003), was whether the treating physician rule should also apply in ERISA benefits determinations. The Ninth Circuit, in the case under review, applied an earlier Ninth Circuit ruling that said the treating physician rule should apply. Other circuits had disagreed. Today, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court held that those other circuits were right and the Ninth Circuit was, um, wrong. If a treating physician rule should apply in ERISA cases, the Supreme Court explained, it's up to the Secretary of Labor to say so. Because the Secretary of Labor hasn't said so, the rule simply doesn't apply. 4. Greetings, sportsfans. If any one theme can be said to have infused the wonderful Supreme Court Reports that John P. Elwood once wrote while practicing law at Baker and Botts, it was his love of national park lands and his strongly held view that park concessionaires should be governed by a sensible, easily administered dispute resolution mechanism. Thus, it came as no surprise that Elwood, who now works as an Assistant to the Solicitor General, would be selected to argue the government's position in the much-sought-after case of National Park Hospitality Assn. v. Department of Interior, No. 02-196 (U.S. May 27, 2003). John's love of nature and the fact that he had been raised by wolves at Yellowstone placed him in good stead as he faced off at the podium against one of the Nation's most experienced Supreme Court advocates, Kenneth S. Geller. And how did John P. Elwood fare in yesterday's ruling, the one or two readers to have suffered to the end of this blog post are clamoring to know? Well, the Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. But under the theory that any litigator worth his or her salt can transform any conceivable result into a victory, I'm going to count this as a win for John. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, which concluded that Elwood and Geller should return sometime not too soon after the case has properly ripened for judicial resolution. Joining in Justice Thomas's opinion were the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg. Justice John Paul Stevens would have held that the case was ripe but that the concessionaires lacked standing. Justice Stephen G. Breyer -- the Court's resident administrative law guru -- dissented in an opinion in which Justice O'Connor joined. He would have reached the merits of the case and -- get this -- ruled in the government's favor. So, not one Justice disagreed with Elwood's side of the case, and two even agreed with it. It doesn't get much better than that. With the exception of a per curiam reversal I shall turn to momentarily, that's today's baseball. Drive around. No deposit, no return. Yada, yada, yada. [Yes, a poor imitation of John P. Elwood wrote this case summary.] 5. In the early morning hours one day back in April 1986, Clyde Timothy Bunkley burglarized a closed, unoccupied Western Sizzlin' Restaurant. He was arrested shortly thereafter, and police discovered a small pocketknife -- where else -- in Bunkley's pocket. No evidence exists that the pocketknife was used in the burglary. Under Florida law, someone who commits burglary while armed with a dangerous weapon can be sentenced to life imprisonment, while someone who commits burglary without being armed with a dangerous weapon faces only a maximum of five years in prison. Bunkley, it almost goes without saying, was sentenced to life behind bars. In 1997, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled that the type of knife Bunkley had in his trousers did not qualify as a dangerous weapon. But Florida state courts follow an incredibly wacky principle of jurisprudence whereby judicial decisions are not applied retroactively unless the decisions result in a "jurisprudential upheaval" constituting "a major constitutional change." Thus, because the decision that Bunkley's knife wasn't a dangerous weapon was simply a refinement of existing law, the Florida courts held that Bunkley could have the pleasure of continuing to spend the rest of his days on earth as the guest of a Florida penitentiary. Yesterday, however, the U.S. Supreme Court told Florida "wait just one minute." In Bunkley v. Florida, No. 02-8636 (U.S. May 27, 2003) (per curiam), the Court summarily granted certiorari and vacated the Florida Supreme Court's judgment to require the Florida court to decide whether the statute that that court construed in 1997 meant the same thing back in 1986. And if the Florida court answers "yes," then Bunkley will be a free man. Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Kennedy and Thomas, dissented. The Florida court's 1997 ruling already explained that that decision was a change in the law, and that would seem to compel a negative answer to the question whether the law meant the same thing back in 1986. On the bright side, the dissenters did not remark that Bunkley should be thankful, this being Florida and all, that he received only a life sentence, instead of the death penalty, for burglarizing a closed Western Sizzlin' Restaurant with a pocketknife in his trousers. The Court will next issue opinions and orders on Monday, June 2, 2003. Posted at 22:31 by Howard Bashman "Prelude: Bakke Revisited": R. Lawrence Purdy, whose op-ed addressing issues relating to the University of Michigan cases National Review Online published today, has a much more detailed law review article about the Grutter v. Bollinger case in the Spring 2003 issue of the Texas Review of Law & Politics. Posted at 22:28 by Howard Bashman Available online at law.com: Jonathan Ringel reports here that "11th Circuit Extends Baseball Antitrust Shield." And Jason Hoppin has an article entitled "Facing a Fraud Judgment? Bankruptcy Court Can Help." Posted at 22:20 by Howard Bashman "A court of civility and controversial conservatism; The Fourth Circuit's rulings cast a wide influence": Tomorrow's edition of The Christian Science Monitor will contain this article. Posted at 22:11 by Howard Bashman Still to come: Tonight's round-up of yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Posted at 20:53 by Howard Bashman Op-ed update: I'm very pleased to report that my op-ed on the subject of "judicial insubordination" has been accepted for publication by a major media outlet. It should be available in print throughout much of the United States and online everywhere the Internet reaches in just a few days from now. More precise details concerning when and where the piece will appear will follow once it is appropriate for me to disclose them here. Posted at 19:29 by Howard Bashman "Justices Seek Lower Court Judge Raises": Gina Holland of The Associated Press has this report. The American Bar Association provides additional information here (press release issued today) and here (detailed report issued today; PDF document). Posted at 19:21 by Howard Bashman "High Court OKs Family Leave Act, Coercive Interrogations": Nina Totenberg today had this report on NPR's Morning Edition (Real Player required; 7 minutes and 18 seconds). Posted at 16:43 by Howard Bashman "Police Cannot Be Sued for Coercive Questioning, Supreme Court Rules": The Metropolitan News-Enterprise offers this report. Posted at 16:17 by Howard Bashman Money wins cases: Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled against the federal government in the case of United States v. $8,221,877.16 in United States Currency. Posted at 15:10 by Howard Bashman Face veil vs. driver's license photo ID: As much as I enjoy seeing what Eugene Volokh has to say on this topic, it's at least equally fascinating to read the coverage this issue has been receiving from the blog "The Niqabi Paralegal," which describes itself as the "blog of a Muslim paralegal student." You can view the relevant posts at this link. Posted at 14:58 by Howard Bashman "Feinstein Is Key Vote for Judge Nominees": The Associated Press has this report. Posted at 14:45 by Howard Bashman Is qualified immunity available for the language police? Reuters reports here that "Language Police Bar 'Old,' 'Blind' in Textbooks." Posted at 14:40 by Howard Bashman "Online Divorce Growing in Popularity": The Associated Press provides this report. Posted at 14:28 by Howard Bashman InstaPundit's down? Then InstaBackup's up. (And by "up," of course, I mean as functional as any Blogger/Blog*Spot site with lots of traffic tends to be.) Posted at 12:36 by Howard Bashman "Soldier Guilty for Refusing Anthrax Shot": The Associated Press has this report. Posted at 12:07 by Howard Bashman "Operation Racial Preferences: What the U.S. military doesn't need." R. Lawrence Purdy today has this essay at National Review Online. Posted at 11:24 by Howard Bashman "Federalism wins"? The New York Law Journal's round-up of legal news today contains, above its second item, the headline "Federalism Wins in Medical Leave Act Ruling." Posted at 09:42 by Howard Bashman The Associated Press is reporting: You can access here an article entitled "Texas Gov. OKs 'Defense of Marriage Act'"; here "Judge Denies Motions in Anthrax Case"; here "Reptiles in Jail Until Aquarium Opens"; here "Closing Arguments Begin in Fla. Drug Case"; here "FCC Decision on Media Ownership Nears"; and here "Calif. Striptease Museum Faces Cash Woes." Posted at 09:38 by Howard Bashman "Pickering vows to push diversity; But report that dad's judicial successor already selected denied": Today's edition of The Clarion-Ledger contains this article. Posted at 06:56 by Howard Bashman "Court won't hear appeal in drug case; 76-year-old is facing 7 years for cocaine sales": Today's edition of The Detroit Free Press contains this report. Posted at 06:53 by Howard Bashman Elsewhere in Wednesday's newspapers: In The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports here that "Broader Take Upheld on Family Leave Law; The high court sides with a federal statute governing time off for workers, including state employees, to tend to seriously ill relatives"; here that "Court Gives Leeway to Interrogate; Justices deal a blow to Miranda right, say a person can be forced to talk in bid for evidence"; and here that "Hearings to Remain Secret." An article reports that "U.S. Supreme Court Lets Stand Rulings Backing ATM Charges; Justices refuse to hear an appeal from cities that want to bar banks from imposing fees on customers of other financial institutions." An article from Bloomberg News is entitled "Black & Decker Wins Ruling on Disability Benefits." You can access here an article entitled "It's 'Just Wrong,' Says the Plaintiff; Oliverio Martinez is blind and paralyzed, and lives in a cramped trailer. He attributes his problems to his shooting by Oxnard police." A related editorial is entitled "Justice Takes a Beating." In business news, "Jury Awards Inventor in Suit Against EBay." You can access here an article entitled "Pro-Constitution, anti-Patriot; Arcata's defiance of an anti-terrorism law -- led by a freshman councilman -- is at the forefront of a trend." And letters to the editor run under the headings "Close the Loopholes on 'Legal' Extortion" and "For Now, Lawyers Are Consumers' Only Hope." In The Boston Globe, Lyle Denniston reports here that "Court sides with Congress over states on family leave" and here that "Justices won't review secret deportation hearings; Refusal to hear case leaves issue in limbo." In local news, you can access here an article entitled "Facing US aid cut, Mass. lawmakers weigh 'per se' law." In op-eds, columnist Eileen McNamara has an essay entitled "Time to seek a 2d opinion" and Robert Kuttner has an essay entitled "Diversity is squashed in FCC rules change." In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports here that "Justices affirm family leave act; State workers can sue under '93 law" and here that "Rehnquist surprises some with ruling; Justice has history of backing states, but this time, court supports federal law." Finally for now, in The Washington Times, Frank J. Murray reports here that "High court voids states' immunity" and here that "Court allows muzzle on deportation cases." Posted at 06:20 by Howard Bashman Today's FindLaw columnists: Law Professor Michael C. Dorf has an essay entitled "How Abortion Politics Impedes Clear Thinking on Other Issues Involving Fetuses." And guest columnists Dick Thornburgh and David R. Fine have an essay entitled "A Recent Supreme Court Punitive Damages Decision Unites Usually-Opposed Justices On the Need for More Guidance In This Area." Posted at 06:16 by Howard Bashman In Wednesday's newspapers: In The New York Times, Neil A. Lewis has an article entitled "A Judge, a Renomination and the Cross-Burning Case Without End." Linda Greenhouse reports here that "Police Questioning Allowed to the Point of Coercion." An editorial is entitled "Upholding Family Leave." And in business news, an article reports that "Pressure Increases for Tighter Limits on Injury Lawsuits." The Washington Post reports here that "Justices Extend Leave Act's Reach; Putting States Under Law Counters Trend" and here that "Court Stays Out of Secrecy Fray; Dispute Centers on Closed Deportation Hearings for Hundreds Detained After 9/11." In other news, "Reprieve Stands For Va. Inmate; High Court Allows Halt to Execution." In tech news, an article reports that "Jury Rules Against EBay in Patent Suit; Online Firm Protests $35 Million Award." And an editorial is entitled "States' Rights Muddle." Finally for now, The Christian Science Monitor contains an editorial entitled "Gun Loopholes and Terror." Posted at 00:00 by Howard Bashman Tuesday, May 27, 2003
"Book Review: An injudicious life": Peter Roff, UPI National Political Analyst, reviews Bruce Allen Murphy's book "Wild Bill: The Legend and Life of William O. Douglas."
Posted at 23:54 by Howard Bashman
Available online at law.com: Tony Mauro reports here that "Supremes Give State Workers an FMLA Win." An article reports that "California Justices Question 'Closed-Door' Utility Deal." And in news from New York, you can access here an article entitled "Judge's Power to Review $625M Tobacco Fee Award Challenged" and here an article entitled "N.Y. Judges Allow Illegals to Maintain Claims for Lost Earnings." Posted at 23:32 by Howard Bashman Programming note: The Supreme Court of the United States today issued four decisions in argued cases and one per curiam summary reversal that, in combination, total nearly 140 pages. As a result, my summary of today's decisions won't be appearing online here until tomorrow. I'm four-fifths of the way through the decisions, having just completed my review |
