tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9810402580596183172024-03-05T06:25:11.272-05:00Appellate DailyNews and Commentary on the Federal Appellate CourtsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger248125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-981040258059618317.post-7365864214468456492014-04-11T17:19:00.001-04:002014-04-11T19:34:03.179-04:00SCOTUS Historical Society Event with Justice Alito<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOpJ-ZKtMTpEU1oRO0fT5wwzCs9E4Vj8MALydF_TL4pb5QUyASayn17OCEiczCzcxB1FGMt69G_h8iZR_F6WkpIlZRWHkT1oo1k7uY4QJs6gOPS_kFec8u4JRDiDdcGLAt594M3ZLAAOI/s1600/001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOpJ-ZKtMTpEU1oRO0fT5wwzCs9E4Vj8MALydF_TL4pb5QUyASayn17OCEiczCzcxB1FGMt69G_h8iZR_F6WkpIlZRWHkT1oo1k7uY4QJs6gOPS_kFec8u4JRDiDdcGLAt594M3ZLAAOI/s1600/001.jpg" height="400" width="300" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">April 9, 2014 / Michelle Olsen</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The <a href="http://www.supremecourthistory.org/">Supreme Court Historical Society</a> held a <a href="http://www.supremecourthistory.org/files/2014/03/JudgingJudgesInviteWEB-1.pdf">panel discussion</a> about judicial biographies, hosted by Justice Samuel Alito at the Supreme Court on April 9.<br />
<br />
The tweets below are observations from the event, including some interesting comments by Justice Alito during the program, held in the courtroom, and at the reception after.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Historical Society supports research, programs, and publications about the Court. Justices are often present at the events. Information about membership is <a href="http://www.supremecourthistory.org/society-info/society-membership/">here</a>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The Supreme Court <a href="http://supremecourtgifts.org/">gift shop</a>, which sells autographed copies of justices<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">’ </span>books and many other items, supports the Society<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">’</span>s work. </span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
Justice Alito recommends <a href="http://t.co/NDPCml88HB">http://t.co/NDPCml88HB</a> as a resource for learning about <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SCOTUS&src=hash">#SCOTUS</a>.<br />
— Michelle Olsen (@AppellateDaily) <a href="https://twitter.com/AppellateDaily/statuses/454240852609875968">April 10, 2014</a></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
Justice Alito: Both the Historical Society and the Fellows program were the "brainchildren" of CJ Burger. <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SCOTUS&src=hash">#SCOTUS</a><br />
— Michelle Olsen (@AppellateDaily) <a href="https://twitter.com/AppellateDaily/statuses/454241214548959232">April 10, 2014</a></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
Alito & his wife went to lecture by a judge some yrs ago that was very boring. Alito guessed boring bc judges limited in what they can say.<br />
— Michelle Olsen (@AppellateDaily) <a href="https://twitter.com/AppellateDaily/statuses/454241751059148800">April 10, 2014</a></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
...His wife said, "No, it's because judges are very boring people." Alito: "She's never wrong."<br />
— Michelle Olsen (@AppellateDaily) <a href="https://twitter.com/AppellateDaily/statuses/454241993754181632">April 10, 2014</a></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SCOTUS&src=hash">#SCOTUS</a>-Justice Alito attended the reception after and spoke with many people.<br />
— Michelle Olsen (@AppellateDaily) <a href="https://twitter.com/AppellateDaily/statuses/454246042629079040">April 10, 2014</a></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
I asked Justice Alito if he would like to do a book. It was a decided no. <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SCOTUS&src=hash">#SCOTUS</a><br />
— Michelle Olsen (@AppellateDaily) <a href="https://twitter.com/AppellateDaily/statuses/454246275853328384">April 10, 2014</a></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
Alito was interested to read, re Heller, that he's a gun "enthusiast." Gun use almost exclusively when in Army, he told small group. <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SCOTUS&src=hash">#SCOTUS</a><br />
— Michelle Olsen (@AppellateDaily) <a href="https://twitter.com/AppellateDaily/statuses/454247795713900544">April 10, 2014</a></blockquote>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
Event itself re judicial biographies. Panelists have written about <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SCOTUS&src=hash">#SCOTUS</a> justices. Interesting pros and cons of deceased or live subject.<br />
— Michelle Olsen (@AppellateDaily) <a href="https://twitter.com/AppellateDaily/statuses/454242975116447746">April 10, 2014</a></blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
Pro of live subject is the original source; pro of deceased subject is that others more willing to talk about person. <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SCOTUS&src=hash">#SCOTUS</a><br />
— Michelle Olsen (@AppellateDaily) <a href="https://twitter.com/AppellateDaily/statuses/454243970579976193">April 10, 2014</a></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
Prof. Stephen Wermiel <a href="https://twitter.com/auwcl">@AUWCL</a> talked about being chosen by Justice Brennan to write his bio. Met in secret at Court, pored over papers.<br />
— Michelle Olsen (@AppellateDaily) <a href="https://twitter.com/AppellateDaily/statuses/454243602928246784">April 10, 2014</a></blockquote>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" lang="en">
Panelist Clare Cushman gave high marks to co-panelist book: Judge John Ferren on Justice Wiley Rutledge: <a href="http://t.co/67BmcLltNR">http://t.co/67BmcLltNR</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SCOTUS&src=hash">#SCOTUS</a><br />
— Michelle Olsen (@AppellateDaily) <a href="https://twitter.com/AppellateDaily/statuses/454256254643617792">April 10, 2014</a></blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
...Among the impressive and long list of sources noted at end of the Rutledge book is Justice John Paul Stevens, a Rutledge clerk. <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SCOTUS&src=hash">#SCOTUS</a><br />
— Michelle Olsen (@AppellateDaily) <a href="https://twitter.com/AppellateDaily/statuses/454256955012706304">April 10, 2014</a></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-981040258059618317.post-90237402888730902232014-04-08T09:49:00.000-04:002014-04-08T09:49:05.527-04:00Facebook Case Tests Scope of ‘True Threat’<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">This article first appeared in the
<a href="http://www.nationallawjournal.com/supremecourtbrief/id=1202650072847/Facebook+Case+Tests+Scope+of+True+Threat%3Fmcode=0&curindex=0&curpage=ALL">April 7, 2014</a>, issue of the National Law Journal’s Supreme Court Brief.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">A man
convicted of making threats using Facebook has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to
resolve a circuit split over what constitutes a “true threat.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Under the
pseudonym “Tone Dougie,” Anthony Douglas Elonis posted violent content on
Facebook about his wife and others, often in the form of rap lyrics.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Elonis was
convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), which makes it a federal crime to transmit
“any threat to injure the person of another” in interstate commerce. There are
comparable state laws.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected Elonis’ appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In February, the
University of Virginia School of Law’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic filed a <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/215447127/Elonis-SCOTUS-Petition-Final-2-13-14-With-Appendix">petition
for certiorari</a> on behalf of Elonis. John Elwood, a Vinson & Elkins
partner and clinic instructor, is the counsel of record. Elwood is also a
former assistant to the solicitor general and clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The brief in
opposition is due April 21, so the justices could act soon on the petition.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Virginia v. Black</i>, a 2003 Supreme Court opinion about
cross burning, held that when a “speaker <i>means
to communicate</i> a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of
unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals,” that is
a true threat (emphasis added). Such threats are not protected speech under the First Amendment.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The petition outlines
a split among federal courts of appeals and state high courts over <i>Black</i>’s true threat definition. One
interpretation focuses on the speaker, while the other focuses on the speaker
and the listener.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Does the phrase “means to
communicate” require that the speaker subjectively intend a threat, or is it
enough that the message sent comes across objectively as a threat?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The petition
also notes that at least eight state high courts are in conflict with the
federal courts of appeals covering their regions. For instance, the First
Circuit utilizes an objective test, while Massachusetts and Rhode Island follow
a subjective one. State-federal conflicts are present in the Second and Ninth
Circuits, too, the petition reports.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/216395633/United-States-v-Elonis">Third Circuit</a>
applied the objective test, the majority view, to uphold Elonis’ Facebook
convictions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In his
petition, Elonis argues for the subjective test, submitting that he was just using
Facebook therapeutically, as his marriage had broken up and he had lost his job.
The Facebook posts, the petition contends, “certainly involve no more violent
imagery than songs by any one of scores of popular rappers, including the
Eminem songs about the rapper’s ex-wife that inspired several of petitioner’s
posts.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In his Facebook
posts, Elonis brought up the First Amendment, linking to a Wikipedia entry on
freedom of speech. In one post, he wrote, “Art is about pushing limits. I’m
willing to go to jail for my constitutional rights. Are you?”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The petition includes
a rudimentary description of Facebook, a subtle recognition of the justices’ admitted
lack of online savvy: Users have “a home page on which the user can post
comments, photos, and links to other websites.” They “may become ‘friends’ with
other users.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Justice Elena
Kagan has said that the justices do not even use email.</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-981040258059618317.post-7831513263604688312014-03-29T12:57:00.000-04:002014-03-29T13:28:53.615-04:00Judge Kopf's Attire Post Was Just AwfulMy reactions to Judge Richard Kopf's recent <a href="http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2014/03/25/on-being-a-dirty-old-man-and-how-young-women-lawyers-dress/">post</a> on women's attire were first, shock, and second, concern, for the attorney being described and for all women appearing before the judge. Frankly, I also felt concern for the judge. The post is so clearly out of bounds that it made me wonder about his state of mind.<br />
<br />
One part of the post reads like a numbered paragraph in a sexual harassment complaint, which might look something like this (the judge's words are in red):<br />
<br />
23. The supervisor wrote:<br />
<br />
"My employee <span style="color: red;">is brilliant, she writes well, she speaks eloquently, she is zealous but not overly so, she is always prepared, she treats others, including her opponents, with civility and respect, she wears very short skirts and shows lots of her ample chest. I especially appreciate the last two attributes.</span>"<br />
<br />
That kind of statement promotes discouragement and even, hopelessness: No matter how good you are, no matter how hard you work, it doesn't matter. I wondered if there was enough detail that local attorneys knew who was being described. If so, it's humiliating.<br />
<br />
It got worse. The judge also wrote:<br />
<br />
"<span style="color: red;">Think about the female law clerks. If they are likely to label you, like Jane Curtin, an ignorant slut behind your back, tone it down.</span>"<br />
<br />
Via Muses of his own making (more on that below), the judge has just labeled a capable officer of the court "an ignorant slut."<br />
<br />
Let's review all of the women described in the post:<br />
<br />
1-Ignorant slut (who can write a heck of a legal brief, though!!)<br />
<br />
2-Backstabbing gossips<br />
<br />
3-Wicked stepmother (appearing to cite his daughter/s on this point)<br />
<br />
4-Inept daughter in need of parental guidance<br />
<br />
5-Teary daughter upset by events beyond her control<br />
<br />
That's a good number of pejoratives and stereotypes related to women, in a relatively short post.<br />
<br />
In the comments to the post, there was some <a href="http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2014/03/25/on-being-a-dirty-old-man-and-how-young-women-lawyers-dress/#comment-11654">feedback</a>: female law clerks in the building had no idea what the post was talking about.<br />
<br />
Responding, the judge <a href="http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2014/03/25/on-being-a-dirty-old-man-and-how-young-women-lawyers-dress/#comment-11690">said</a> that he had taken "literary license, the example I gave in the post was an amalgam of more than one person and more than one event and did not necessarily relate to the same place or person. That said, the essence of the example was accurate."<br />
<br />
If the example was "essence" or "an amalgam," and not real, that should have been noted in the original post, because real people get wrongly ID'd otherwise.<br />
<br />
The next day, the judge <a href="http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2014/03/26/post-script-to-yesterdays-infamous-post/">attempted to justify</a> the post as giving insight into the foibles of federal judges. I didn't need that post to realize that judges are human. I do expect that judges will treat people with courtesy, which the post did not.<br />
<br />
If there is a general point on which I can agree with the judge, it is that attire does matter. But that universe is bigger than specific items of clothing, and it applies to everyone.<br />
<br />
For example, Judge Carla McMillian of the Georgia Court of Appeals recently <a href="https://twitter.com/JudgeCarla/status/449722843413372928">tweeted</a> that she has seen "too casual dress" as a problem for both men and women. "Real life examples would be wearing a jogging suit to try a jury case or wearing 'boat shoes' with no socks. It just stands out," she <a href="https://twitter.com/JudgeCarla/status/449724083333120000">wrote</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-981040258059618317.post-84621966013762508842014-03-12T09:31:00.000-04:002014-03-12T09:31:16.560-04:00New Appellate Chair at Jones Day, First Woman<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPFKEbu9n3X-VJFyxea3Q6cYlCYwTeDLcPvXli2R4fnyB94uaOIVcMoS2XA_c84zLSUbcs2RdmQpmswKGa9I76-l84G3MIKFsplXjEWgC4qLCpjXqBq0rQgUKawKLFWYmSyVtAfY1y17g/s1600/BethHeifetz.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPFKEbu9n3X-VJFyxea3Q6cYlCYwTeDLcPvXli2R4fnyB94uaOIVcMoS2XA_c84zLSUbcs2RdmQpmswKGa9I76-l84G3MIKFsplXjEWgC4qLCpjXqBq0rQgUKawKLFWYmSyVtAfY1y17g/s1600/BethHeifetz.jpg" height="200" width="150" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Credit: JonesDay.com</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://www.jonesday.com/bheifetz/">Beth Heifetz</a> is the new chair of the Supreme Court and appellate
group at Jones Day, known formally as “Issues & Appeals.</span>” She succeeded <span style="font-family: inherit;">Glen
Nager as of 2014.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Heifetz is the first woman
to lead Issues & Appeals, a group of more than seventy-five attorneys in twelve
offices throughout the country.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Her career path to
chairing a flagship group at a major law firm has been both traditional and
non-traditional.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Heifetz is a longtime
member of the Issues & Appeals group and a former Supreme Court clerk,
working for Justice Harry Blackmun during the 1985 term.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">“I learned law, and I
learned baseball,” Heifetz said, in an interview Monday.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">She and her co-clerks had
breakfast with the justice every day during the week, and he would share
details about players and statistics.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Blackmun and Judge Abner
Mikva of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, for whom she also
clerked, served as mentors and role models as her career progressed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The part that is unexpected
(and encouraging) in Heifetz’s career trajectory is that she stepped away from
practice for five years, while raising young children. She also later worked
part-time.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Heifetz attributes her
success in returning to practice and now leading a nationwide appellate group
to support from both her family and Jones Day.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>“Everyone was committed to making it
work,” she observed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Recently, Heifetz<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/11/deja-vu-at-jones-day-firm-hires-six-supreme-court-clerks.html">made
news</a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>as the partner in charge
of judicial clerk recruiting. In the last two hiring cycles, under her
leadership, twelve Supreme Court clerks joined the firm, a jaw-dropping total.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Heifetz is excited about
the new hires,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>“great young
attorneys,” as she put it, and the future of the Issues & Appeals
group.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">“We’ve got a good
formula,” Heifetz explained.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Jones Day is always a
presence at the Supreme Court. This term alone, the firm has four arguments by
four different attorneys. The variety of advocates is a Jones Day trademark, term
after term.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Heifetz is currently
working on the high-profile Detroit bankruptcy at the Sixth Circuit and in
related proceedings, with other Issues & Appeals attorneys. She and Detroit’s
Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr, formerly of Jones Day, worked together at the firm
on bankruptcy matters. Now, both find themselves with roles in the supersized
Detroit bankruptcy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Heifetz also intends to
continue her community involvement. In 2013, President Obama<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.jonesday.com/president-obama-to-appoint-jones-days-beth-heifetz-to-united-states-holocaust-memorial-council-08-16-2013/">appointed
her</a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>to the governing body of
the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. She works with the museum on its
collections: obtaining and preserving evidence of the Holocaust and ensuring
that it is accessible to researchers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Nager, who led Issues
& Appeals for fifteen years, maintains an active appellate practice at
Jones Day. Just last week, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari
that Nager filed in <i><a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/north-carolina-board-of-dental-examiners-v-federal-trade-commission/">North
Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC</a></i>. He also recently completed
two years as president of the U.S. Golf Association.</span></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-981040258059618317.post-40353623441783605542014-03-10T12:02:00.000-04:002014-03-10T16:03:51.461-04:00Follow-Up re Letter to Chief Judge Briscoe About Argument AudioThe Tenth Circuit announced <a href="http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/utah-ssm-order.pdf">today</a> that it will bypass normal procedure and post audio online from the historic argument on Utah's same-sex marriage ban, to be held April 10 in Denver. Presumably, the same will be allowed for the April 17 argument on the Oklahoma ban. <br />
<br />
As noted in <a href="http://bit.ly/1dzY6ua">my recent letter</a> to Chief Judge Briscoe requesting that change, persons wanting to hear argument audio must, under court rules, file a motion (stating reasons).<br />
<br />
Thank you to Chief Judge Briscoe and the entire Tenth Circuit for opening the proceedings to all interested persons, including the public, as well as national and international press.<br />
<br />
My guess is that the Tenth Circuit cases have the best shot of getting Supreme Court review because they present the clearest "case or controversy." Unlike other states, Utah and Oklahoma are defending their laws with no mixed messages from high state officials.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-981040258059618317.post-4950160270575142782014-02-26T13:05:00.000-05:002014-02-26T13:05:08.630-05:00Tenth Circuit Same-Sex Marriage Arguments: Letter Requesting Online Audio<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: -.2in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>This letter was sent to Chief Judge Mary Beck Briscoe of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.</i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: -.2in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: -.2in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">February 22, 2014</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: -.2in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: -.2in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Dear Chief Judge Briscoe:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">This
letter is a request for the Tenth Circuit to consider posting argument audio
online, as a routine matter, and for the same-sex marriage arguments in April, specifically. My interest is as a lawyer, freelance
journalist, and citizen.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 0.5in;">The U.S. Supreme
Court and ten federal appellate circuits post argument audio to their websites. Only three circuits, including the Tenth Circuit,
do not. The Tenth Circuit is the only
one of the three that requires a motion to be filed to obtain audio.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 0.5in;">The April
arguments about the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans will be part of
American legal history, as the country and the courts weigh this important
issue. There will be national and even
international interest in the arguments. The Tenth Circuit courtroom cannot accommodate that level of interest,
nor can any courtroom. Since the proceedings
are public, this presents a meaningful gap in public access.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 0.5in;">Posting audio of
the arguments online would help fill this gap. It would also reduce the administrative burden on Tenth Circuit judges,
staff, and persons requesting audio, as motions would not need to be filed or
processed.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 0.5in;">The Supreme
Court, famously cautious on access, has been posting its audio to the Internet since
2010. The Ninth Circuit recently began live
streaming audio of all arguments and video of en banc arguments.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 0.5in;">It would be
greatly appreciated if the Tenth Circuit would review its current policy and join
the Supreme Court and most of its sister circuits in offering access to argument
audio online, particularly for the April marriage arguments.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 0.5in;">Thank you for
your consideration.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: -.2in; text-indent: .5in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-981040258059618317.post-38585444850607702092014-02-13T09:05:00.000-05:002014-02-13T23:00:37.398-05:00Kagan: 'Too Soon' for a Bobblehead<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">This article first appeared in the <a href="http://www.nationallawjournal.com/supremecourtbrief/id=1202642731981/Justice+Kagan+on+Opinion+Writing+Legacy%3Fmcode=0&curindex=0&curpage=ALL">February
12, 2014</a>, issue of the National Law Journal’s Supreme Court Brief.<o:p></o:p></span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></i>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQQHc6V4ANY1CaEWJZnu34nJ65Uw5s6pwf39UeL6pbBNHnBYVF0sr0i6YlkA_MnIzoNPRSXke3IjPeCD8-u-_Ijk7ljY0uktlA0vEkgYNCPWDqfVZhKXSvr0qKcf_SGIhfilTGW6DjwB8/s1600/1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQQHc6V4ANY1CaEWJZnu34nJ65Uw5s6pwf39UeL6pbBNHnBYVF0sr0i6YlkA_MnIzoNPRSXke3IjPeCD8-u-_Ijk7ljY0uktlA0vEkgYNCPWDqfVZhKXSvr0qKcf_SGIhfilTGW6DjwB8/s1600/1.JPG" height="320" width="195" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8_-q9BtzlrY_yyjtGTBgcMwhocC7m4I2qs6guR48HUTRTSDzXNo8_w9KyU5PqLuaPMxUeUzrEOqJHt1yKjZBs2jOfO-7EitJhOZbFDKMHIBiE_DkQ1SWrWI8t1eYljtYEwIVJiRS7RAU/s1600/2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8_-q9BtzlrY_yyjtGTBgcMwhocC7m4I2qs6guR48HUTRTSDzXNo8_w9KyU5PqLuaPMxUeUzrEOqJHt1yKjZBs2jOfO-7EitJhOZbFDKMHIBiE_DkQ1SWrWI8t1eYljtYEwIVJiRS7RAU/s1600/2.JPG" height="320" width="220" /></a></div>
<i style="font-family: inherit;">*Photo credits below</i><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Speaking to
an audience in Washington, D.C., Justice Elena Kagan recently reflected on her
future legacy—and a possible Kagan bobblehead.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The occasion
was a February 5 luncheon where Judge Sri Srinivasan of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was honored with the J. Reuben Clark Law Society’s
Rex Lee Advocacy Award.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">During a question
and answer period, I asked Kagan how she would like to be remembered and, on a related,
but more whimsical note, what she would like on her future bobblehead. The <a href="https://vine.co/v/bJUhZ21Xmhr">popular figures</a> of Supreme
Court justices, distributed by the <a href="http://greenbag.org/bobbleheads/bobbleheads.html"><i>Green Bag</i> law journal</a>, feature visual references to justices’ important opinions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">“I don’t have
ambitions to lay down some marker in a particular field of law,” Kagan replied.
There is no: “I want to be a great First Amendment person,” or “I want to have
a legacy in Fourth Amendment” for her. “I am taking the cases one by one” and
trying “to decide [them] as well and honestly as I can.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Kagan wants
her opinions to be clear, persuasive, and “not awful to read.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">And about her
bobblehead?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">“Too soon,
too soon, too soon,” the justice indicated. “I hope that none of the things that
I have written [so far] will make the cut” because there has not been “anything
significant enough.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Responding to
another question, Kagan recalled a conversation with Srinivasan and former
Solicitor General Paul Clement about different argument styles. The three were
on a plane, traveling back from the Sixth Circuit.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">“I forget
whether it was Paul or Sri who said some people heat up a room, and some people
cool down a room,” Kagan offered, noting that superb advocates fit in both
categories.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Srinivasan is
on the cool side, Kagan observed, “incredibly forceful and persuasive” in
giving justices the unadorned “scoop.” Clement uses his own effective approach,
she pointed out, bringing “electricity” to the podium.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">It “is really
important for young lawyers to remember when they start developing their own
advocacy style, that you can be great in a lot of different ways,” Kagan
explained.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Accepting the
Rex Lee award, Srinivasan joked that he has gone from being “an appellate
advocate wanna be” as a new law graduate to “already an appellate has been with
my most recent appointment.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Srinivasan
joined the D.C. Circuit in May 2013, after a distinguished career as an
appellate advocate. At the time of his confirmation, Srinivasan was the Principal
Deputy Solicitor General, the number two position in the office, once held by Chief
Justice John Roberts. The Senate confirmed Srinivasan to the D.C. Circuit by a
remarkable 97-0 vote, and he is often mentioned as a potential Supreme Court
nominee.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Srinivasan praised
the thirteen prior Rex Lee award recipients, who include several past
solicitors general and other appellate luminaries, as “the best of the best”
and expressed gratitude that he had worked with eleven of them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Judge Thomas
Griffith, Srinivasan’s D.C. Circuit colleague, introduced Kagan at the luncheon.
Srinivasan thanked Griffith for giving him a warm welcome to the court and for
his example as a judge.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The annual Rex
Lee award is named for the late solicitor general who served in the Reagan administration.
His son, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), was at the luncheon. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Solicitor
General Donald Verrilli, Walter Dellinger, Maureen Mahoney, and other well-known
appellate attorneys also attended. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">James
Rasband, dean of the J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University,
introduced Srinivasan and presented the award.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The J. Reuben
Clark Law Society is associated with BYU’s law school and its sponsor, the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Rex Lee served as president of BYU
and as its founding law school dean.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>*Photo credits: Nicholas Jepsen for the J. Reuben Clark Law Society</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>1-Justice Elena Kagan during Q&A</i></span><br />
<i>2-Judge Sri Srinivasan and Dean James Rasband, BYU Law School, with the Rex Lee Advocacy Award</i><br />
<i>Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill</i></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-981040258059618317.post-75932665069464885252014-01-23T09:51:00.000-05:002014-01-23T09:51:35.514-05:00Circuit Split Watch: Are 'Boobies' Bracelets the New Black Armbands?<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">This article first appeared in the
<a href="http://www.nationallawjournal.com/supremecourtbrief/home/id=1202639500953/Are+Boobies+Bracelets+the+New+Black+Armbands%3Fmcode=1202617075357&curindex=1">January 22, 2014</a>, issue of the National Law Journal’s Supreme Court Brief.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Federal courts
are split over whether schools can ban <a href="http://keep-a-breast.org/i-love-boobies/">bracelets</a> that say “i ♥ boobies! (KEEP A
BREAST).” The bracelets are part of a breast cancer awareness movement targeted
at youth, but some middle and high school administrators are crying foul. A
petition for certiorari on this free speech issue is pending at the U.S.
Supreme Court.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In its 1969 landmark
First Amendment decision, <i><a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15235797139493194004&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">Tinker
v. Des Moines Independent Community School District</a></i>, the Supreme Court
held that school officials could not bar young people from wearing black
armbands to school as a peaceful war protest. In 1986, though, in <i><a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=225428161324034725&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">Bethel
School District No. 403 v. Fraser</a></i>, the high court said that officials
could punish student speech that used vivid sexual imagery in a school
assembly.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The “boobies”
bracelet is a hybrid between the <i>Tinker</i>
armband and the <i>Fraser</i> speech: a
clothing accessory with a message, which some schools view as double entendre. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So far,
courts have not found that the bracelets substantially disrupt the school
environment, yet they have reached different results on the bans.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Schools won in
<a href="http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/school_law/usdc-nd-indiana-boobies%20ruling.pdf">Indiana</a>
and <a href="http://www.splc.org/pdf/kj_order.pdf">Wisconsin</a> federal
district courts; those decisions were not appealed. Students won at the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting en banc in a <a href="http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/112067p.pdf">Pennsylvania</a> case.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The nine-member
Third Circuit majority determined that the “bracelets are not plainly lewd,” looking
to <i>Fraser</i>, and comment on “an undeniably
important social issue,” applying Justice Samuel Alito Jr.’s concurrence in
another student speech case, the Supreme Court’s 2007 <i><a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10117776825257150184&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47">Morse
v. Frederick</a></i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Five judges on
the Third Circuit dissented.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">What about “I
♥ vaginas” or “I ♥ testicles,” they asked, if couched as cancer awareness
slogans? “[S]chool districts would be powerless to address” them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The dissent also
criticized the majority for treating Alito’s <i>Morse </i>concurrence as controlling and for deepening a circuit split on
the weight of Alito’s opinion (separate from the split about the bracelets).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Morse</i> is better known as the “BONG HiTS 4
JESUS” case, quoting a banner that students unfurled at a school event. A
five-justice majority said that the banner was not protected speech in a school
setting, since it promoted illegal drug use.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The Third
Circuit dissent reasoned that since Alito joined that majority opinion, his
concurrence is dicta. For plurality rulings, the narrowest rationale controls,
but <i>Morse</i> was not a plurality.
Justice Anthony Kennedy also signed on to Alito’s concurrence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The Third
Circuit majority responded that Alito and Kennedy cast the deciding votes, but
on the condition, spelled out in the concurrence, that <i>Morse</i> not be read to restrict speech that “comment[s] on any
political or social issue.” The social commentary language is binding and weighs
in favor of allowing breast cancer awareness bracelets, the Third Circuit
majority concluded.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">A <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/201328814/SCOTUS-Petition-for-a-Writ-of-Certiorari-Easton-Area-School-District">petition
for certiorari</a> is pending at the Supreme Court on the Third Circuit
decision. Absent extensions, the response is due February 5.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The justices may
opt to wait until more federal appellate courts have vetted the bracelet bans or
otherwise choose not to disturb the rulings below.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In 2012, the
justices declined to review two en banc decisions—also from the Third Circuit—about
another free speech battleground for students and schools: <a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2011/07/circuit-split-watch-first-amendment.html">online
posts</a>. The circuit had sided with students who created fake and vulgar
MySpace profiles about their principals, while off school property.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-981040258059618317.post-74407250490846119982014-01-06T16:53:00.001-05:002014-01-06T17:32:21.260-05:00Court Hearing Utah's Same-Sex Marriage Appeal Lags in Public AccessThe U.S. Supreme Court today <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010614zr_2co3.pdf">stayed</a> the federal district court's ruling in <i>Kitchen</i>, "pending final disposition of the appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit." The district court ruling had allowed same-sex marriage in Utah.<br />
<br />
An argument in the potentially landmark case <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/196576370/Tenth-Circuit-Briefing-Schedule-Kitchen">is coming</a> to the Denver federal appeals court in the next several months.<br />
<br />
The Tenth Circuit is one of only three holdout circuits that do not post argument audio online. The others are the Second and Eleventh Circuits, which make audio available via CD purchase. To get Tenth Circuit audio, you need to file a motion stating reasons for seeking access. If granted (which I have been told happens routinely), the court emails an mp3.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the Tenth Circuit will make an exception with <i>Kitchen </i>or, perhaps, see this as an opportunity to join most of its sister circuits and post audio online.<br />
<br />
Today, the access-leading Ninth Circuit <a href="http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/absolutenm/articlefiles/650-Live_Audio_Streaming.pdf">began live streaming audio</a> of all arguments and recently <a href="http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/absolutenm/articlefiles/641-En_Banc_Streaming.pdf">began live streaming <i>video</i></a> of all en banc arguments.<br />
<br />
Links to audio from the ten circuits that post online and the Supreme Court are <a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/p/oral-argument-audio.html">here</a>.<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Appellate Daily</i> has done a series of posts <a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2013/05/letter-to-dc-circuit-re-audio-access.html">advocating</a> for <a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2013/05/argument-audio-four-holdout-circuits.html">greater public access</a> to oral argument audio, including <a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2010/11/before-supreme-court-tv-how-about-this.html" style="font-style: italic;">Before Supreme Court TV, How About This?</a>, back in 2010. Several circuits have <a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2013/05/dc-circuit-will-post-audio-to-internet.html">increased</a> <a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2011/03/fourth-circuit-to-post-argument-audio.html">access</a> <a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2013/09/sixth-circuit-posts-argument-audio.html">since</a> <a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2011/11/11th-circuit-some-progress-on-argument.html">that</a> time.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-981040258059618317.post-90697263876927459892014-01-06T08:48:00.002-05:002014-01-06T19:39:02.224-05:00Via Twitter: Why Sotomayor Likely to Refer Utah's Stay Request to Full Supreme Court<b>UPDATED-See end of post</b><br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
Mon. AM: Keeping an eye on <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SCOTUS&src=hash">#SCOTUS</a> to see if any movement on Utah's <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SSM&src=hash">#SSM</a> request. Expecting Sotomayor to refer to full court, but we'll see.<br />
— Michelle Olsen (@AppellateDaily) <a href="https://twitter.com/AppellateDaily/statuses/420181125776945152">January 6, 2014</a></blockquote>
<br />
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
...If she denies, Utah could renew its request to "any other Justice," under <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SCOTUS&src=hash">#SCOTUS</a> Rule 22.4.<br />
— Michelle Olsen (@AppellateDaily) <a href="https://twitter.com/AppellateDaily/statuses/420182917185163264">January 6, 2014</a></blockquote>
<br />
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
...Another reason referring to the full Court is likely. Denying just passes the buck to another justice. If UT can pick, my $ is on Scalia.<br />
— Michelle Olsen (@AppellateDaily) <a href="https://twitter.com/AppellateDaily/statuses/420185600310792194">January 6, 2014</a></blockquote>
<br />
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
...Would Sotomayor rather pass to the full Court or Scalia on this issue? Again, I think full Court is likely.<br />
— Michelle Olsen (@AppellateDaily) <a href="https://twitter.com/AppellateDaily/statuses/420185867437625344">January 6, 2014</a></blockquote>
<br />
The importance of the same-sex marriage issue also makes it likely that Justice Sotomayor will refer Utah's stay request to the full Court.<br />
<br />
<b>Update</b> from Adam Charnes, who clerked for Justice Kennedy:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/AppellateDaily">@AppellateDaily</a> By tradition, if 1 justice denies and it is resubmitted to a 2nd justice, the 2nd justice refers it to the entire Court<br />
— Adam Charnes (@AdamCharnes) <a href="https://twitter.com/AdamCharnes/statuses/420186798665392128">January 6, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br />
This tradition is one more reason Justice Sotomayor will likely refer the request to the full Court. Why add paperwork when the request will probably end up with the full Court anyway?<br />
<br />
<b>Second Update:</b> Justice Sotomayor referred the matter to the full Court, which granted the stay (<a href="http://pub.bna.com/lw/13A687Order.pdf">here</a>).<br />
<br />
<b>Third Update:</b><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" lang="en">
Re discussion earlier today on <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SCOTUS&src=hash">#SCOTUS</a> apps, example of tradition bucked (2nd justice didn't refer to Ct) via <a href="https://twitter.com/EQCF">@EQCF</a> <a href="http://t.co/Yf7pD4FCW2">http://t.co/Yf7pD4FCW2</a><br />
— Michelle Olsen (@AppellateDaily) <a href="https://twitter.com/AppellateDaily/statuses/420352374155145217">January 7, 2014</a></blockquote>
<br />
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-981040258059618317.post-65847054830939962432013-12-30T17:40:00.001-05:002013-12-30T17:40:07.932-05:00Top Appellate Daily Posts of 2013<span style="font-family: inherit;">Laughter beat caskets for the top <i>Appellate Daily</i> post this year.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Below are the most viewed articles of 2013. Four appeared first in the <i>National Law Journal</i>'s U.S. Supreme Court <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/supreme_court_brief.jsp">section</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Thanks to everyone for reading in 2013 and for all of the follows, links, retweets, and mentions on <i><a href="https://twitter.com/AppellateDaily">Twitter</a></i>. Happy 2014!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">1-<i><a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2013/12/laughtergate-day-laughter-died-at-scotus.html">Laughtergate: The Day the Laughter Died at SCOTUS</a></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> *Something went awry on the First Monday in October.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">2-<i><a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2013/04/circuit-split-watch-will-court-bury.html">Circuit Split Watch: Will the Court Bury Casket Cases?</a></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> *David-and-Goliath facts with an important legal issue stoked interest.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">3-<i><a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2013/11/justice-breyer-and-religion.html">Justice Breyer and Religion</a></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> *An ill-founded assumption prompted this post.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">4-<i><a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2013/08/circuit-split-watch-patricia-milletts.html">Circuit Split Watch: Patricia Millett's Last Supreme Court Case?</a></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> *Prominent counsel and a second trip to the high court made this case one to watch.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">5-<i><a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2013/02/justice-souter-working-in-reverse-by.html">Justice Souter: Working in Reverse, by Choice</a></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> *Souter retired from the Supreme Court, but not from judging.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">6-<i><a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2013/07/breyer-reacts-to-affirmative-action.html">Breyer Reacts to Affirmative Action Decision: 'Phew'</a></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> *Would have been a Top 5 list, except this piece came in at #6. One of my favorites to write this year. Candid and fascinating insights from Breyer on strategy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">A 2012 post on <a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2012/06/how-paul-clement-wishes-he-could.html">how Paul Clement prepares for oral argument</a> is still the all-time champ.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-981040258059618317.post-55793403499954872082013-12-17T06:41:00.000-05:002013-12-17T06:41:54.729-05:00Laughtergate: The Day the Laughter Died at SCOTUS<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">This article first appeared in the <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleSCI.jsp?id=1202633239419">December 16,
2013</a>, issue of the National Law Journal’s Supreme Court Brief.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Laughter can
be serious business at the U.S. Supreme Court, especially on the First Monday
in October.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">As the new term
opened this fall, laughter disappeared from argument transcripts and a mild rumpus
ensued on social media. Laughter did make a comeback, but not without some unanswered
questions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">“When you
read Supreme Court argument transcripts,” Justice Elena <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLpKFac-OiE&feature=youtu.be&t=9m50s">Kagan</a>
explained to a group of Harvard Law School students in September, “they
actually tell you when there’s laughter in the Court” and which justice triggered
it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Jay Wexler, a
former clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and now a professor at Boston
University School of Law, publishes updated laughter counts for each justice at
his <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSHUMOR">@SCOTUShumor</a> Twitter feed,
along with commentary.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">“Ten o’clock,”
Wexler tweeted on Monday, October 7. “I guess #SCOTUS has started up. I can
feel the laughter coursing through the countryside. If you’re very still, you
can too.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Kimberly
Atkins, who also follows Supreme Court laughter, was in the courtroom. From her
<a href="https://twitter.com/DCDicta">@DCDicta</a> Twitter feed that morning,
Atkins reported that Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia,
Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito had all gotten laughs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Problem is, when
the transcripts went online later that day, the laughter was missing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Twitter
noticed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Both Wexler
and Atkins tweeted about the A.W.O.L. laughter, and Atkins reiterated: “I heard
laughs w my own ears. But if it isn’t in the transcript, is it like a tree
falling in a forest?”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Other Twitter
users, including myself, joined the discussion through comments and retweets. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Laughter at the Supreme Court has a following. To some, it is like box scores,
fun to track. To others, it is a digestive aid that helps dull transcripts go
down. It is even fodder for scholars, since laughter gives insight into
justices’ personalities and Supreme Court dynamics.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Wexler
wondered if “they’ve stopped making the notation. Several possible laugh lines
in the transcript.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Not only was
the term new that day, but so was the Clerk of the Court, Scott Harris. His predecessor,
William Suter, retired over the summer after more than two decades in the
position. Had a new, laughter-free day dawned at the Supreme Court?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">That
afternoon, I contacted Alderson Reporting, which prepares the transcripts. A company
representative indicated by telephone the next day that there was not a new
policy; however, he did not explain the laughter void. (Responding to a later
inquiry for this story, the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office said: “We
don’t know why the omission occurred.”)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">“Laughtergate
deepens,” Atkins tweeted.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The good news
is that laughtergate was mostly short-lived. The next day, laughter showed up in
a new transcript. The First Monday transcripts remained somber, though. During
the next week, I checked for updates several times. Still no laughter. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Another check
in early December revealed that the laughter was back: one laugh each for four
justices on the term’s first day, consistent with Atkins’ tweet.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">When the
laughter returned is fuzzy. Neither Alderson nor the Public Information Office provided
an exact date. The office did say that Alderson initiated and made the changes
as part of its review process.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So, where do the
numbers stand now?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">After the
“laughtergate fix,” as Wexler called it, he tweeted updated numbers for the
term, current through the December sitting. Scalia leads with twenty-two
laughs; Breyer is not far behind with twenty. Ginsburg and the famously silent Justice
Clarence Thomas are tied for last with zero.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">“I check sometimes,”
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLpKFac-OiE&feature=youtu.be&t=9m50s">Kagan</a>
told the Harvard Law students, with a slight grin, speaking of the laughter
tallies. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">For more justices’
comments on the subject, see Wexler’s <a href="http://www.jaywex.com/pages/Supreme%20Court%20Humor%20Page.htm">collection</a>
at his website.</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-981040258059618317.post-87910917245811179142013-11-11T20:50:00.000-05:002013-11-11T21:30:19.156-05:00Justice Breyer and Religion<i>The Huffington Post</i> ran an <a href="http://huff.to/HRMqt6">article</a> on Friday asking: Did Justice Breyer admit to being an atheist?<br />
<br />
Short answer, no.<br />
<br />
The basis for the article's question comes from last week's <i>Town of Greece</i> <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-696_5425.pdf">oral argument</a> (pp. 18-19).<br />
<br />
Justice Scalia asked counsel: "[W]hat is the equivalent of prayer for somebody who is not religious?"<br />
<br />
After a brief colloquy between Scalia and counsel, Breyer said: "Perhaps he's asking me that question and I can answer it later." (Counsel's time was about to expire.)<br />
<br />
Some people are reading that as Breyer admitting he is an atheist.<br />
<br />
Again, no.<br />
<br />
A question <i>for</i> Breyer (if that's what it was) does not necessarily mean a question <i>about</i> Breyer or his beliefs. As, in fairness, the <i>HuffPost</i> article points out, Breyer could have been talking about his ability to at least restate other people's "not religious" viewpoints. In any case, "not religious" does not always equal atheist.<br />
<br />
Breyer, who is Jewish, is a regular at the <a href="http://www.sunjournal.com/news/nation/2013/10/07/supreme-court-begin-term/1433458">Red Mass</a>, a Catholic service held before the opening of each new Supreme Court term. He has attended the last seven, including one just a few weeks ago.<br />
<br />
His daughter Chloe, an Episcopal priest, writes in her book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Close-Young-Womans-First-Seminary/dp/0465007155/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1384187872&sr=1-1" style="font-style: italic;">The Close: A Young Woman's First Year at Seminary</a> (2000), that "Church-based activity was more the exception than the rule as I was growing up" (p. 156). But the exceptions are telling. Breyer attended, hosted, and encouraged participation in religious events.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I grew up in an interfaith, academic household, the daughter of an American Jewish father and an English Anglican mother, and I was baptized into the Church of England as a young child. During the few years my family and I attended an Episcopal church in Cambridge, each of us had different reasons for going. My mother liked singing the traditional Anglican hymns she had grown up hearing in England. <b>My father respected the old Irish American rector and thought my brother, sister, and I should have some exposure to organized religion</b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">—</span><b>even if it wasn't his own Jewish faith. We came to know more about our Jewish heritage when my father began holding annual Passover Seders and attending Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur services </b>(Introduction, xiii).</blockquote>
One end note: Justices, like all judicial and executive officers, need to take an <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/oath/textoftheoathsofoffice2009.aspx">oath</a> to support the Constitution; however, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Art. VI, para. 3.<br />
<br />
Since the Constitution says justices' religion shouldn't be an issue, why bring it up? (But, of course, we do.)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-981040258059618317.post-64921611490947904722013-11-06T13:15:00.000-05:002013-11-06T13:15:51.652-05:00Circuit Split Watch: Attorney's Fees in Prisoner Litigation<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>This article first appeared in the <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleSCI.jsp?id=1202626597860">November
5, 2013</a>, issue of the National Law Journal’s Supreme Court Brief.</i><b><o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Mary Murguia,
one of the newest judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, recently
took on two of her longest serving colleagues in a dispute over attorney’s fees
in prisoner litigation. Murguia has another appeals court, the Sixth Circuit, on
her side. The U.S. Supreme Court could be asked to resolve the split.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Judge Stephen
Reinhardt, joined by Judge John Noonan, wrote the majority opinion in <i><a href="http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/07/17/09-16113.pdf">Woods
v. Cervantes</a></i>. Both have served on the Ninth Circuit since the 1980s. Reinhardt
is still active; Noonan has taken senior status. Murguia joined the Ninth
Circuit in 2011, though not as a rookie. From 2000 until her elevation, she served
as a federal district judge in Arizona. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In the Ninth
Circuit case, a California prison official improperly denied dental care to
prisoner Earnest Woods, causing him pain and suffering for more than a year. A
jury awarded Woods $1,500 in compensatory and punitive damages. After also winning
on appeal, Woods sought attorney’s fees totaling $16,800.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The Prison
Litigation Reform Act caps attorney’s fees at 150 percent of a money award for “any
action brought by a prisoner.” Beyond that limit, “fees shall not be awarded.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Reinhardt ruled
that Woods was entitled to collect his attorney’s fees,** finding that the cap
applies only to fees for a trial, an action brought by the prisoner, but not to
appeals brought by prison officials.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Murguia, the
former district court judge, disagreed, calling the majority’s attempt “to
evade the statute’s clear meaning…unconvincing.” The trial and appeal are parts
of the same action, she stated. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Citing a unanimous
2004 decision by the Sixth Circuit, <i><a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=riley+v+kurtz&hl=en&as_sdt=2,47&case=2025110710010636064&scilh=0">Riley
v. Kurtz</a></i>, Murguia urged that the attorney’s fee cap apply to both the
trial and appeal. The Supreme Court declined to review the Sixth Circuit case at
the time.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">“The majority
has created a circuit split by awarding attorney fees the statute says ‘shall
not’ be awarded,” Murguia concluded.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Reinhardt acknowledged
the circuit split, but countered that “we are not required to follow the
initial circuit to decide an issue if our own careful analysis” yields a “contrary
result.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The state of California,
representing the prison official, filed a petition for rehearing en banc in
August. California argued that the majority opinion “blows the lid off the
statutory attorney’s fee cap that Congress enacted to lessen the financial
burden of prisoner litigation on governmental officials and, ultimately,
taxpayers.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In September,
the University of Montana Law School’s Criminal Defense Clinic responded for
Woods, accusing the petition of “overriding hyperbole.” The response suggested
allowing the issue to percolate through additional circuits.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The Ninth
Circuit had directed the clinic to respond to the petition, indicating some
level of interest in taking up the matter en banc. Responses to en banc
petitions are not automatically allowed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">If the en
banc court declines to step in, the case could reach the Supreme Court soon. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Attorney’s fees
are already on the high court’s radar.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In the new
term, the Supreme Court will hear two cases about fees in patent disputes. Companies
have complained that they are forced to settle infringement lawsuits, even frivolous
ones, because the costs of litigation are too high. They hope the justices will
make it easier to collect attorney’s fees, to deter so-called patent trolls.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Last term,
the Supreme Court decided an attorney’s fee case in the context of the National
Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and another, without argument, in an abortion
protest clash.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Murguia’s
brother Carlos is a federal district judge in Kansas, their home state. The two
are the first brother and sister pair of federal judges. Another sister, Mary’s
identical twin Janet, is the president of the National Council of La Raza, the
largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United
States.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">____________________</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">**On the exact amount of attorney's fees to award, the majority referred the matter to its </span><a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000130" style="font-family: inherit;">Appellate Commissioner</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">.</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-981040258059618317.post-10349582846480913872013-10-23T13:09:00.000-04:002013-10-23T14:16:27.909-04:00RBG's Greatest Hits (on the Majority)<i>"And though she be but little, she is<a href="http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-19/lifestyle/37845668_1_personal-trainer-justice-elena-kagan-supreme-court-justices"> fierce</a>."</i><br />
<i>William Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night's Dream</i><br />
<i><br /></i>As the Supreme Court issued some of its last decisions of the 2012-2013 term, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took the unusual step of reading three dissents from the bench, showing her strong feelings about them. The number is actually four, because one of her statements covered two separate cases.<br />
<br />
Here, as she sounded live in the courtroom during the last week of June, are Justice Ginsburg's Greatest Hits (on the majority). Hearty thanks to <a href="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2012">Oyez</a> for making them available online last night.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><a href="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_12_96">Shelby County v. Holder</a> </i>(Voting Rights Act)<br />
<b>"What has become of the Court's usual restraint...?"</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><iframe frameborder="no" height="166" scrolling="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/116700976" width="100%"></iframe></b><br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_11_556" style="font-style: italic;">Vance v. Ball State University</a> & <a href="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_12_484" style="font-style: italic;">University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar</a> (Title VII)<br />
<b>"The Court's disregard for the realities of the workplace means that many victims of workplace harassment will have no effective remedy."</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><iframe frameborder="no" height="166" scrolling="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/116700799" width="100%"></iframe></b><br />
<br />
<br />
<i><a href="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_11_345">Fisher v. University of Texas</a> </i>(affirmative action, a solo dissent)<br />
<b>"I have several times explained why government actors, including state universities, need not blind themselves to the still lingering, everyday evident effects of centuries of law-sanctioned inequality."</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><iframe frameborder="no" height="166" scrolling="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/116701220" width="100%"></iframe></b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Could the Supreme Court's next step to greater public access be live broadcast or same-day audio release of opinion announcements or arguments? I think that is a realistic target.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-981040258059618317.post-66894367143854506782013-09-10T09:25:00.000-04:002013-09-10T09:25:45.888-04:00Sixth Circuit Posts Argument Audio OnlineI noticed some <a href="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/court_audio/aud1.php">argument audio</a> on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit's website and called the Clerk's Office this morning for details.<br />
<br />
Per that call, the Sixth Circuit began posting audio at the end of July and plans to continue, going forward. The court is still deciding how long it will keep the audio up. There was no formal announcement, the Clerk's Office said. A link was simply added to the website.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2013/05/argument-audio-four-holdout-circuits.html">That leaves only</a> the Second, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits that do not make argument audio available online. A friendly <a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2010/11/before-supreme-court-tv-how-about-this.html">hint, hint</a>, to those courts.<br />
<br />
Find links to the now ten federal appellate courts that post audio <a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/p/oral-argument-audio.html">here</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-981040258059618317.post-77511942569815045562013-08-15T08:57:00.000-04:002013-08-15T08:57:06.646-04:00Circuit Split Watch: Patricia Millett's Last Supreme Court Case?<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>This article first appeared in the <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleSCI.jsp?id=1202615488036">August 14,
2013</a>, issue of the National Law Journal’s Supreme Court Brief.</i><b><o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Patricia
Millett, one of President Obama’s three pending nominees to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, is a counsel of record in <i>Samantar v. Yousuf</i>, now making its second trip to the Supreme Court.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The petition
in the case, which Millett opposes, highlights a circuit split in the lower
courts about immunity for foreign officials. The Supreme Court has already
shown interest in the petition twice and may decide to hear the case in the
upcoming term.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">During a recent
Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Millett’s nomination, Senator Chris Coons
(D-Del.) asked her about <i>Samantar</i>, which
she argued and won at the high court in 2010. Millett, who co-heads the Supreme
Court practice at Akin Gump, represents individuals who allege that Mohamed Ali
Samantar is responsible for atrocities, including torture and murder, committed
under his command as defense minister and then prime minister of Somalia. He
currently lives in Virginia.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In 2010, the justices
found that Samantar was not entitled to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act, but left open the question of whether common law immunity might
apply. That is the issue in the latest case. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">On remand,
the <a href="http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/111479.P.pdf">Fourth
Circuit</a> rejected common law immunity for Samantar. The court noted that
“crimes or human rights violations” contrary to international norms, also
called <i>jus cogens</i>, can wipe away
immunity.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The pending
petition, filed by Shay Dvoretzky, a partner at Jones Day and former Scalia
clerk who represented Samantar at the Supreme Court in 2010, contends that three
federal appellate courts disagree with the Fourth Circuit.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Most
recently, the <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Matar+v.+Dichter,+563+F.3d+9+(2d+Cir.+2009)&hl=en&as_sdt=2,47&case=11934131299347773640&scilh=0">Second
Circuit</a> held in 2009: “A claim premised on the violation of <i>jus cogens</i> does not withstand foreign
sovereign immunity.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Millett, for
the respondents, disputes that a circuit split exists, in part because the
cases the petition identifies as splitting from the Fourth Circuit predate the 2010
<i>Samantar</i> decision. In other words,
they did not incorporate the Supreme Court’s latest statement on immunity for
foreign officials.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In addition, the
response brief points out that, after the Court’s 2010 decision, the U.S. State
Department rejected immunity for Samantar. The State Department determined that
he “is a former official of a state with no current government formally
recognized by the United States.” As a result, no recognized government can “assert
or waive any immunity Samantar might enjoy.” The United States recently recognized a government in Somalia, which
requested immunity for Samantar, but the State Department has not, to date,
changed its recommendation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The case has
the Supreme Court’s attention.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">On June 24, after
briefing by both sides, the justices called for the views of the Solicitor
General (CVSG). According to research published in a 2009 <i>George Mason Law Review </i>article, “the grant rate is considerably
higher following a CVSG,” but it does not guarantee that the Court will hear a case.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Earlier, the
Court requested a response to Samantar’s latest petition, after that
opportunity was initially waived. Though less of an indicator than a CVSG, the
response request also increases the odds of a grant, according to the 2009
research.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The fact that
the question at issue is one the Court itself left open earlier is another factor
favoring review.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Will <i>Samantar</i> be Millett’s last Supreme Court
case (or one of the last) in her history-making career as an advocate before
the Court? The Senate Judiciary Committee already approved her nomination, along
party lines, but the full Senate has not yet voted.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">For most of
her career, Millett served in the U.S. Department of Justice in the Solicitor
General’s Office and in the Civil Division’s Appellate Section, under administrations
of both parties. As Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) told Millett at her hearing, she
finds herself in the midst of a larger battle over the D.C. Circuit, which is
not about her qualifications.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Millett and fellow
Solicitor General office alum Lisa Blatt, who heads Arnold & Porter’s
Supreme Court practice, <a href="http://bit.ly/1eFIe9O">made history</a> in
recent years by passing the thirty-argument mark, the most ever for female
advocates before the high court. Blatt now holds the lead with thirty-three
arguments to Millett’s thirty-two.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">The author assisted with the briefs in
the 2010 Samantar case as an attorney at Jones Day.</span></i></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-981040258059618317.post-8309407390329501302013-07-23T08:53:00.003-04:002013-07-23T08:53:57.181-04:00Breyer Reacts to Affirmative Action Decision: 'Phew'<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The U.S.
Supreme Court’s latest affirmative action decision has been
criticized as anticlimactic and even inconsequential. Justice Stephen Breyer
doesn’t think so.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Speaking
earlier this month in Aspen, Colorado, Justice Breyer explained why <i>Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin</i> matters
and expressed relief at the result. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Breyer <a href="http://www.aspeninstitute.org/events/2013/07/03/susman-conversation-individual-constitutional-rights">shared
the stage</a> with Margaret Marshall, retired chief justice of the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and moderator Elliot Gerson, a former clerk
to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart. Gerson now serves as an executive
vice-president at the Aspen Institute, a think tank that sponsored the
presentation, the Susman Conversation on Individual Constitutional Rights (<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/aspeninstitute/sets/72157634614147570/page2/">pictures</a>).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Gerson <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvv81p8UkkY&feature=youtu.be&t=39m52s">asked</a>
Breyer about the <i>Fisher </i>affirmative action case, noting “that
the media seemed to dismiss [it] as insignificant.” The Supreme Court in <i>Fisher</i> returned the dispute to the lower court, eight months after argument, with little commentary.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Dressed
casually and still wearing a sling due to a serious bicycle accident in April,
Breyer gave a brief history of affirmative action at the Supreme Court, as
background. He touched on <i>Regents of the
University of California v. Bakke</i> (1978), <i>Grutter v. Bollinger</i> (2003), and <i>Fisher</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Bakke</i> and <i>Grutter</i> held, in Breyer’s admitted shorthand, that “you can use
affirmative action, but be careful, don’t go too far.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">When the same
issue reached the Court again in <i>Fisher</i>,
“there was a lot of speculation,” Breyer told the audience. “Would there be a
change? Would [the justices] say no affirmative action? What would the Court
do?” Breyer asked, repeating the questions on many people’s minds.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">“I can tell
you what the Court did do,” Breyer continued, with his characteristic verve. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">“Seven
members of the Court said <i>Grutter</i> is
the law. So, what do I say? ‘Phew,’” drawing laughter. “I say that’s right; that
was my view. <i>Grutter</i> is the law.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">With each
case, Breyer pointed to numbers. Justice Lewis Powell’s solo concurrence in <i>Bakke</i> became a five-justice majority in <i>Grutter</i>, which became a seven-justice majority
in <i>Fisher</i>. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In other
words, five is better than one, and seven is better than five. <i>Fisher</i> was not meaningless; affirmative
action left the Court stronger this term than it came in.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">“So, that’s
why I think it’s an important case,” Breyer concluded. “Sometimes an important
case is simply reaffirming another case, which reaffirmed another case.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The Court has
already agreed to review affirmative action again in the upcoming term, which
will test Breyer’s optimism. The new <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/schuette-v-coalition-to-defend-affirmative-action">case</a>
is about a Michigan constitutional amendment that prohibits preference based on
race or gender in public university admissions decisions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Breyer acknowledged
an ongoing “war” in the law related to affirmative action, including a close division
among the justices.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Under one
view, Breyer observed, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause is colorblind,
meaning no discrimination for or against because of race. Another view, “closer
to my own,” Breyer stated, is that the Amendment was intended to be inclusive,
that is, to include African Americans, who had been slaves, into society.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Breyer discussed
the role of dissents and how they can improve the majority opinion, perhaps an
insight into <i>Fisher</i>. The only thing
the public sees are “failed dissents,” as Breyer put it, the ones that didn’t
persuade.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Breyer
explained that justices sometimes work for months on dissents, only to scrap them
when their persuasive points change the majority. “That is a common
experience,” according to Breyer.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">A veiled
reference to <i>Fisher</i>? Maybe, maybe
not. If so, it could partially account for the long delay between argument and
decision in <i>Fisher</i>.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Breyer </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3yGb5wDVzE" style="font-family: inherit;">spoke</a><span style="font-family: inherit;"> the day before at
another Aspen Institute event, an interview with Professor Noah Feldman of
Harvard Law School, on the last day of the annual Aspen Ideas Festival. The
week before, Justice Elena Kagan also </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC_PVDsYK9g" style="font-family: inherit;">spoke</a><span style="font-family: inherit;"> at the festival.</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-981040258059618317.post-74715097559573856372013-07-18T08:01:00.000-04:002013-07-18T08:01:42.304-04:00Senator Lee Criticizes Chief Justice in New E-Book<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>This article first appeared in the July 17, 2013, issue of the National Law Journal’s <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleSCI.jsp?id=1202611297731">Supreme
Court Brief</a>.</i><b><o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Since joining
the Senate in 2011, Mike Lee has gained a reputation for criticizing President Barack
Obama. In his new e-book, though, the junior Republican from Utah takes on a fellow
conservative, Chief Justice John Roberts, and his 2012 opinion upholding the
Affordable Care Act. I recently spoke with Senator Lee about the project.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Roberts-Wrong-About-Healthcare-ebook/dp/B00C0CPCRW">Why
John Roberts Was Wrong About Healthcare: A Conservative Critique of the Supreme
Court’s Obamacare Ruling</a> </i>does
not hide its political leanings. The title tells the story.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Lee, a former
Howrey partner, writes that Roberts had “distinguished himself as a fair-minded
jurist and a true constitutional scholar—a man seemingly committed to the rule
of law and to core constitutional principles.” This “hard-earned distinction
was turned on its head” after healthcare, according to Lee.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Roberts’ decision,
in Lee’s view, smacks of an improper, split-the-baby compromise, a nod to both limited
and big government. It put up a gate with the Commerce Clause, but opened it
with the taxing power, invalidated, but then changed the Medicaid provisions to
save them. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">This was “contrary
to what we expected from and thought we knew about Chief Justice Roberts,” the
book states.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Lee
acknowledges the possibility that Roberts made the decision because he
ultimately believed the law required it. At the same time, Lee, who clerked for
Justice Samuel Alito, strongly infers that statements from the media and political
leaders swayed Roberts.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In the book’s
foreword, Lee mentions his late father, former Solicitor General Rex Lee, and
includes an interesting factoid: One of the last of Rex Lee’s 59 Supreme Court
arguments, a 9-0 victory, was against a young Roberts.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">“My dad held
John Roberts in the highest regard,” Lee recalls, “and recognized how unusual
it is to find in one person so much intellectual horsepower, professional
talent, refined interpersonal skill, and genuine decency.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I asked Lee
how his father might have reacted to Roberts’ healthcare decision. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">He would have
been “disappointed and surprised,” for sure, but probably would not have
written a book, Lee mused. Lee felt motivated to write because he saw a direct
intrusion on Congress and, more personally, his job.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Although the title
puts the focus on Roberts and there is a polemic flavor throughout, the book reads,
overall, more like a primer on the healthcare case, from a conservative’s
perspective.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">As Lee told
me, he wanted “to explain, in lay terms, what happened.” Consistent with a general
audience, the book defines terms like “<i>id.</i>” and “Slip Opinion.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Regarding the
e-book format, Lee noted in our interview that political publishing is moving
in that direction. He compared e-books to online singles in the music industry;
he liked the idea of getting the book out quickly.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Also, Lee had
in mind about 70 pages for the topic, which fits an e-book. That was as much as
people would like to read about one case, he guessed, except for those who have
already read the hefty healthcare decision itself.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Lee’s book ends
with a lead balloon, a proposed bill attempting to nullify the healthcare
decision’s tax ruling, which has little chance of passing in the Democrat-controlled
Senate.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The book does
not discuss the fact that prominent conservative judges who sit on federal
appellate courts also voted to uphold healthcare. That being the case, why should
Roberts be singled out and his motivations questioned?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Lee responded
in the interview that Roberts’ approach was uniquely convoluted and more
damaging, because it spoke for the Supreme Court.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
The book
currently tops Amazon’s best-seller lists for the judicial branch and for Kindle
e-books about the legal system.</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-981040258059618317.post-25729075811070583092013-07-01T21:27:00.001-04:002013-07-01T21:27:37.310-04:00Good Morning from the Supreme Court of the United States (June Photos II)Just a few of the scenes from the last week of decisions at the U.S. Supreme Court. Previous pictures are <a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2013/06/good-morning-from-supreme-court-of.html">here</a> and <a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2013/06/good-morning-from-supreme-court-of_6322.html">here</a>.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8GpqqVqu-ab-DG49Qa9A7eioiDUfPlZAQXm4IMFlL8hw_o8jBmiyIC8cPEVUa4igrqr52I6T9E4YXeR3j343t-li6-5UNv8SwXbfjfUqh4yLxplARHrryckVIDk13_kJNFk_CAzHcgjo/s1600/1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8GpqqVqu-ab-DG49Qa9A7eioiDUfPlZAQXm4IMFlL8hw_o8jBmiyIC8cPEVUa4igrqr52I6T9E4YXeR3j343t-li6-5UNv8SwXbfjfUqh4yLxplARHrryckVIDk13_kJNFk_CAzHcgjo/s640/1.jpg" width="480" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">"I don't know if I am in the cave or out of the cave; I see these shadows."</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4457062&newclip">Justice Anthony Kennedy</a> referencing the scrim and Plato's cave</span><br />
<br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8KC4pHeQmINFfD-7KWSBUWQq-oeIhXjo9eh-NYVKxR51bO_Ln07gsPRE6bNqzJAYae0Lf_o51FJ8xQII-YM_onaVXqcZzR_FjU9LtYdCSoBbUC0uUlKpRs71SJRTNLl8kHhPggffHJjs/s1600/2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8KC4pHeQmINFfD-7KWSBUWQq-oeIhXjo9eh-NYVKxR51bO_Ln07gsPRE6bNqzJAYae0Lf_o51FJ8xQII-YM_onaVXqcZzR_FjU9LtYdCSoBbUC0uUlKpRs71SJRTNLl8kHhPggffHJjs/s640/2.jpg" width="480" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Jan Crawford of CBS and Melanie Alnwick of Fox5 DC have the right idea</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">for a scorching summer AM: bare feet and flip-flops.</span><br />
<br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3kWbe9AmhP8mFKzgIfXVbCSM8R36g7jAabj-5AqEH5In5LMbqyT-p3D6_lMLc8k7DhvV-hgFHqeS6TOI5s05ddRH09R9BligTf4ppx8XObTvRBnyxFZnAYKnvuRqNZUQ5IQ9cUO7T3FM/s1600/3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3kWbe9AmhP8mFKzgIfXVbCSM8R36g7jAabj-5AqEH5In5LMbqyT-p3D6_lMLc8k7DhvV-hgFHqeS6TOI5s05ddRH09R9BligTf4ppx8XObTvRBnyxFZnAYKnvuRqNZUQ5IQ9cUO7T3FM/s400/3.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Part of the public line. Anyone have some huge chess pieces?</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_JOW5OWwRupMvec8Q5BmqSar_xtjvJGQU3rfw7m0_BnQ2ev6oluJYQmOQuJF-bwGFAI3KoqD9_TzDiBcKu76O3eElWBK_3oa8IeBvW-YioRwj2vkHCH8xEdfVwNaOtx5vBUTbSRya3QA/s1600/4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_JOW5OWwRupMvec8Q5BmqSar_xtjvJGQU3rfw7m0_BnQ2ev6oluJYQmOQuJF-bwGFAI3KoqD9_TzDiBcKu76O3eElWBK_3oa8IeBvW-YioRwj2vkHCH8xEdfVwNaOtx5vBUTbSRya3QA/s400/4.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Scene outside after the same-sex marriage decisions.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfGGXcNGbV5bnRyS9cz98X0x_OZFNpg-Es-dt66Czw64EGAEOJ59vu12U9UvvRCag8_Qqk7zJN4iihe_xl0bk-VZNPpBQB6yOiOQUq9DtUsIyfxnZND7BGgUOY3wsgnXgNPKs3jbEJ_wk/s1600/5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfGGXcNGbV5bnRyS9cz98X0x_OZFNpg-Es-dt66Czw64EGAEOJ59vu12U9UvvRCag8_Qqk7zJN4iihe_xl0bk-VZNPpBQB6yOiOQUq9DtUsIyfxnZND7BGgUOY3wsgnXgNPKs3jbEJ_wk/s400/5.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">The winning Prop 8 plaintiffs and attorney David Boies.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix0O0POXJe3SRlNG5w9zjZO45CSy-bW32CNGAXQu0Uwi4cyHeHLalj5VdAU43uTR8aPhZla6XQ9IaxfmtCxKxyhexIZk6M67b_IzKJkHL3K8JGwNNBvlUNUVYKkIyRhAvXpqh_RFnSvmc/s1600/6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix0O0POXJe3SRlNG5w9zjZO45CSy-bW32CNGAXQu0Uwi4cyHeHLalj5VdAU43uTR8aPhZla6XQ9IaxfmtCxKxyhexIZk6M67b_IzKJkHL3K8JGwNNBvlUNUVYKkIyRhAvXpqh_RFnSvmc/s400/6.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">SCOTUSblog hard at work in temporary digs at the Court cafeteria;</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">there was a second table, as well. On the right (blue shirt) is Dan Stein,</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/the-2013-running-of-the-interns">gold medalist</a> in the "Running of the Interns" and star of <a href="http://www.today.com/news/intern-viral-supreme-court-foot-race-video-shows-his-stuff-6C10467523">Vine</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Thanks to the whole team for keeping us so well informed</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">this week and throughout the Term.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-981040258059618317.post-28468557878327012882013-06-19T13:59:00.000-04:002013-06-19T13:59:24.855-04:00Good Morning from the Supreme Court of the United States (June Photos I)Here are a few photos from my visits to the U.S. Supreme Court for June opinion announcements. May pictures are <a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2013/06/good-morning-from-supreme-court-of.html">here</a>.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiryO9WeGPfUMyxBcsN9jYc-fvcw8XWOYP3Lo-3xKQBrfwb39fC_paj9x3DyTgRlg0fItbu66K1uszCEAGIjXN1AxBh6UWwbQBalTA39QDwkO_K64_ZwsD0my9Sod9nLlca2eucVk32nrg/s1600/Tweeting+perch.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiryO9WeGPfUMyxBcsN9jYc-fvcw8XWOYP3Lo-3xKQBrfwb39fC_paj9x3DyTgRlg0fItbu66K1uszCEAGIjXN1AxBh6UWwbQBalTA39QDwkO_K64_ZwsD0my9Sod9nLlca2eucVk32nrg/s640/Tweeting+perch.jpg" width="480" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This makes a nice tweeting perch.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7XXUIBGNO_vl79a119dxITC8CK-J8n99-RGNWTm83SpdIm6gCaDnFDgA0gQnnStSGfo2PrgAg-QoycB899ewu8uGQEbjhWNNw_YCiycK1g4yvdjf3FT5SKLlebaio8zgVHWtgGLz66eM/s1600/005.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7XXUIBGNO_vl79a119dxITC8CK-J8n99-RGNWTm83SpdIm6gCaDnFDgA0gQnnStSGfo2PrgAg-QoycB899ewu8uGQEbjhWNNw_YCiycK1g4yvdjf3FT5SKLlebaio8zgVHWtgGLz66eM/s640/005.jpg" width="480" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Twitter's mascot agrees.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXZfQ8lkfu-Eig5Ix4BT1lZZsbj9XLDmklM6MCnH_yQwwnLTkKIno2MmXNGySKA1Yv_pu_dCuRe_Nz8oEz5tvWMDrq6tttREfwIiHxdUOXiXldHWj3tkDrEvlVgt7494pgle33VBhSG9M/s1600/001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXZfQ8lkfu-Eig5Ix4BT1lZZsbj9XLDmklM6MCnH_yQwwnLTkKIno2MmXNGySKA1Yv_pu_dCuRe_Nz8oEz5tvWMDrq6tttREfwIiHxdUOXiXldHWj3tkDrEvlVgt7494pgle33VBhSG9M/s640/001.jpg" width="480" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Pete Williams from NBC entering a report.<br />The press has a room in the Court building and a seating section in the courtroom.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAoBoyI_C2qJqmmp0tzOw1Kp9BijUuYkyWBgYyqZ9_odH-HPYqYdmPSfudISP3M07CupWVdccCBZpIkw_HQnM8Zro8r_oGBcvfMmNBekO8M48Rx7NyvOpDUMak8LN21BsoJ3hvwtPBKmI/s1600/Men+at+work.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAoBoyI_C2qJqmmp0tzOw1Kp9BijUuYkyWBgYyqZ9_odH-HPYqYdmPSfudISP3M07CupWVdccCBZpIkw_HQnM8Zro8r_oGBcvfMmNBekO8M48Rx7NyvOpDUMak8LN21BsoJ3hvwtPBKmI/s640/Men+at+work.jpg" width="480" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">For fixing marble or making decisions at the Court, you need five.<br />(And six doesn't hurt.)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmuheUrrp36QFu6p9LYu_7Nx1a4m8EZuulavsd65Ms11kQnRCgJSPx6ouLY3UcBaKUg8lydDRDSY1ZSKuYskcSQdYEzrXBb15yaKnCSutVPB_uuRgOc_8d2HGADmsa8f7ExicJXq6zP1E/s1600/004.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmuheUrrp36QFu6p9LYu_7Nx1a4m8EZuulavsd65Ms11kQnRCgJSPx6ouLY3UcBaKUg8lydDRDSY1ZSKuYskcSQdYEzrXBb15yaKnCSutVPB_uuRgOc_8d2HGADmsa8f7ExicJXq6zP1E/s640/004.jpg" width="480" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From this Court display, comes this Twitter favorite....</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOm_1fI74xE-GEiyadOHbMvOsJ_5r-kztx_pE3et_YbFRPRQsyUIegZb_FDwDgBdCh0YXuThum-a6baS-jo6zAlgXI_rzGt4Xcb2wXdTf_-Iv9NsT19hWYEs3m-RCv7H2ZvBIVpIDRbFk/s1600/003.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOm_1fI74xE-GEiyadOHbMvOsJ_5r-kztx_pE3et_YbFRPRQsyUIegZb_FDwDgBdCh0YXuThum-a6baS-jo6zAlgXI_rzGt4Xcb2wXdTf_-Iv9NsT19hWYEs3m-RCv7H2ZvBIVpIDRbFk/s640/003.jpg" width="480" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The male neck floof! (Worn by Chief Justice Hughes)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfODN2RbeNLefxyn-ZFVLFig7QEieR-QMAJi3na-O2UETy5mK1zhb8g8UsfIW6F6KqoO6DEG27BYvV3w0eGng3q7I7Xx_NIQaWnLtvv8YCvmAuhdnoU3M5j3u2rTyDrPHaMQm2ZMkT6-Q/s1600/Gold+sign.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfODN2RbeNLefxyn-ZFVLFig7QEieR-QMAJi3na-O2UETy5mK1zhb8g8UsfIW6F6KqoO6DEG27BYvV3w0eGng3q7I7Xx_NIQaWnLtvv8YCvmAuhdnoU3M5j3u2rTyDrPHaMQm2ZMkT6-Q/s640/Gold+sign.jpg" width="480" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Where will the Court come out on same-sex marriage, affirmative action, and the Voting Rights Act?<br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I will be at the Court for all remaining opinion announcements, starting tomorrow. You can follow <a href="https://twitter.com/AppellateDaily">@AppellateDaily</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-981040258059618317.post-53185558292003461352013-06-11T16:04:00.000-04:002013-06-11T16:04:47.513-04:00Circuit Split Watch: Streaming Live Broadcast Television<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">This article first appeared in the
June 10, 2013, issue of the National Law Journal’s <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleSCI.jsp?id=1202603609286">Supreme
Court Brief</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Through a service
called Aereo, live broadcast television is available on computers in some
areas. Many consumers welcome the option, but broadcasters, alleging copyright
infringement, do not.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">One federal
appellate court recently ruled in favor of Aereo, while another is reviewing a
contrary result. The U.S. Supreme Court may have the final word.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">For eight
dollars a month, Aereo subscribers can watch live broadcast television on their
computers, tablets and smart phones. Available channels include ABC, CBS, NBC,
FOX, PBS and others. Aereo is now in New York City and Boston, as well as surrounding
areas. The company plans to expand in the near future to more than twenty cities.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In April, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in <i><a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=wnet+and+second+circuit&hl=en&as_sdt=2,47&as_ylo=2013&case=9699637382952634619&scilh=0">WNET
v. Aereo, Inc.</a></i>, refused to block the streaming service, upholding the
lower court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. Circuit Judge Christopher
Droney wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge John Gleeson, visiting from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Circuit Judge Denny
Chin vigorously dissented.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Writing for the
majority, Droney held that Aereo is essentially an antenna for the new
millennium. Over the years, many viewers have used individual rooftop antennas to
capture broadcast programming. Aereo uses new technology to do the same thing. Thousands
of mini-antennas, about the size of a dime, are installed on boards at Aereo.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">“Aereo
assigns an individual antenna to each user. No two users share the same antenna
at the same time, even if they are watching or recording the same program,” Droney
explained.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Not so fast,
countered Chin. Aereo transmits “programming without the authorization of the
copyright holders and without paying a fee.” And its technology is “a sham,” he
said.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Aereo has “no
technologically sound reason to use a multitude of tiny individual antennas
rather than one central antenna; indeed, the system is a Rube Goldberg-like
contrivance, over-engineered in an attempt to avoid the reach of the Copyright
Act.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The Copyright
Act gives copyright holders the exclusive right “to perform the copyrighted
work publicly,” which means “in the case of a motion picture or other
audiovisual work, to show its images in any sequence or to make the sounds
accompanying it audible.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Chin
favorably cited a 2012 preliminary injunction order from the opposite coast involving
Aereokiller, a not subtly named Aereo competitor.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In that case,
<i><a href="http://about.bloomberglaw.com/files/2013/01/CV.pdf">Fox Television
Stations, Inc. v. BarryDriller Content Systems, PLC</a></i>, Judge George Wu of
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California blocked a broadcast-TV-to-Internet
service. Like Chin, Wu found that the broadcasters’ exclusive public
performance rights had been violated.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The California
decision is on appeal and currently being briefed at the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit. Numerous amici have filed briefs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The Second
Circuit is considering whether to rehear the Aereo case en banc. Chin’s
forceful dissent and the fact that one of the judges in the majority was
visiting make the full court’s review more likely. Numerous amici have also
filed briefs in the Second Circuit.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">No matter what
happens in either circuit (or in related litigation popping up as Aereo and
copycat services expand), a Supreme Court petition is likely, given the
financial stakes on both sides.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">If the split
in authority holds, the issue could be attractive to the Supreme Court. It
could also warrant review as an important federal issue affecting a significant
industry and consumers nationwide.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Congress
could also step in to either nix or allow Aereo-like service by amending the
Copyright Act.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">FOX’s parent
company has stated publicly that it would consider making FOX a pay channel if
Aereo is allowed to continue. At least one other network is hedging its bets.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In April, CBS
announced that it had purchased a minority interest in Syncbak, which streams broadcast
programming live to various devices, in partnership with local television
stations.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">If other networks
follow suit and look for new options, consumers could end up winning,
regardless of who wins in court.</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-981040258059618317.post-4452638377209325702013-06-01T16:43:00.001-04:002013-06-01T17:23:02.767-04:00Good Morning from the Supreme Court of the United States (May Photos)In May, I was at the U.S. Supreme Court for opinion announcements and will also be there in June. Each week is going to get more exciting, and I'll be commenting after each session via <a href="https://twitter.com/AppellateDaily"><i>Twitter</i></a>. Here are a few shots from SCOTUS in May. Look forward to bringing you the sights and sounds in June. See you on Monday.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDTUzV_ZKnv2R_SzP7TLCh8xpASIBV91vCaeNh7qm6yT6SWQS4hgQsJsHnbw6eWw3ETF1JyfJrDboSP_zSGb0Poa1X97uthVc_dDDmTfcMjVH39JY5bfDh5OhL2rCqamnrx2RXnpsWJac/s1600/Fountain.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDTUzV_ZKnv2R_SzP7TLCh8xpASIBV91vCaeNh7qm6yT6SWQS4hgQsJsHnbw6eWw3ETF1JyfJrDboSP_zSGb0Poa1X97uthVc_dDDmTfcMjVH39JY5bfDh5OhL2rCqamnrx2RXnpsWJac/s400/Fountain.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Supreme Court Plaza</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5rQ0fnkJ883Ekrm0M7HT5tpvdNmdG3H3Ej-XKaso4YjJrguKnqPZWvur1QnBAc7fTHKMfrlQyXqpV6oAZjCBrfWuRogJWDqXCEwR2g5VpRqGmxT7EeDRm8X-HOpkEZ9988miPjOFI50U/s1600/Cropped+Cabs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="335" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5rQ0fnkJ883Ekrm0M7HT5tpvdNmdG3H3Ej-XKaso4YjJrguKnqPZWvur1QnBAc7fTHKMfrlQyXqpV6oAZjCBrfWuRogJWDqXCEwR2g5VpRqGmxT7EeDRm8X-HOpkEZ9988miPjOFI50U/s400/Cropped+Cabs.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Black robes and black cabs: Could go this way, could go that way</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCWqZnvVurUmFL2EPbXHcj3lDEBxT-MSji6V1ePAOfplqdKdC5w8mXr_J6mmx_0TE5mSvlwjT-1dDNMug4INM4N1Eh1qQ7KfhA0u96MbXfN8n8lr22rgUIdTdd1qyyRgyrdeLUaVYs8MI/s1600/003.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCWqZnvVurUmFL2EPbXHcj3lDEBxT-MSji6V1ePAOfplqdKdC5w8mXr_J6mmx_0TE5mSvlwjT-1dDNMug4INM4N1Eh1qQ7KfhA0u96MbXfN8n8lr22rgUIdTdd1qyyRgyrdeLUaVYs8MI/s320/003.jpg" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Display of confiscated doodles</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoefBP5gd3v9n1WSDok0TPp7_b5ZBLO04bCpnklKAXvnrr7e2yme8hFnyIGs_YkfJGhY2xOjkItDIuJ-CAYx0ch4-NaVWkODBUsVb7jAPHZ8NYj_yL9F4csrwG5EhLQK60ip9yMajXZPk/s1600/002.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoefBP5gd3v9n1WSDok0TPp7_b5ZBLO04bCpnklKAXvnrr7e2yme8hFnyIGs_YkfJGhY2xOjkItDIuJ-CAYx0ch4-NaVWkODBUsVb7jAPHZ8NYj_yL9F4csrwG5EhLQK60ip9yMajXZPk/s320/002.jpg" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption"><span style="font-size: small;">Spiral staircase</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhR7m1eqUZnzWl0yY4XMdgflZGA4m1POp57C4h7DtNxBHBvU9CkiFYlgKn1rrOvjhUtiYIFNSDg03gyyHEDgmS_kSzHqmfOtipuB_tDJN4kiEKb3b20hkZ547uk2T6hweUmEhIxr_YPR7k/s1600/Back.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhR7m1eqUZnzWl0yY4XMdgflZGA4m1POp57C4h7DtNxBHBvU9CkiFYlgKn1rrOvjhUtiYIFNSDg03gyyHEDgmS_kSzHqmfOtipuB_tDJN4kiEKb3b20hkZ547uk2T6hweUmEhIxr_YPR7k/s400/Back.jpg" width="300" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">No scrim on the "other" side of the Court</span><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4J5IkBtLina-hAoz0cM8LF2QjRA2zXaedozcQ5VVuGXrqsPw4GkRnsefvRqywWKsJZGGkhlu4-mEXm9psOkihlSLxEGAp75riD9eq27ORctml4cDZnBJtWrb3e6PSxUksbhh0Zrd0l-w/s1600/curtain.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4J5IkBtLina-hAoz0cM8LF2QjRA2zXaedozcQ5VVuGXrqsPw4GkRnsefvRqywWKsJZGGkhlu4-mEXm9psOkihlSLxEGAp75riD9eq27ORctml4cDZnBJtWrb3e6PSxUksbhh0Zrd0l-w/s400/curtain.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption"><span style="font-size: small;">And that's a curtain for now. See you at SCOTUS on Monday!</span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small; text-align: start;"> Click on any of the photos to enlarge.</span></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-981040258059618317.post-7585161758737623562013-05-24T13:32:00.000-04:002013-05-24T23:22:51.266-04:00Argument Audio: The Four Holdout CircuitsMost federal appellate decisions are final, and arguments are an important part of that process. <i>See</i> "<a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2010/11/before-supreme-court-tv-how-about-this.html">Before Supreme Court TV, How About This?</a>" More and more, courts are opening these public proceedings to the public, via the Internet.<br />
<br />
On Wednesday, <i>Appellate Daily</i> was able to <a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2013/05/dc-circuit-will-post-audio-to-internet.html">announce</a> that the D.C. Circuit will post argument audio online, starting in September. The D.C. Circuit joins the U.S. Supreme Court and eight federal appellate courts that <a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/p/oral-argument-audio.html">post audio online</a>.<br />
<br />
That leaves only four holdout circuits.<br />
<br />
The Second, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits offer audio CDs for purchase. The Tenth Circuit requires a motion to obtain audio; if granted, a copy is emailed. In a phone call this week, the Tenth Circuit clerk's office said those motions are routinely granted.<br />
<br />
A few notes on the future:<br />
<br />
*The Tenth Circuit seems close to posting online. It already offers free e-audio, just not on its website. It's like the moment when a child is deciding whether to approach or back away from an unfamiliar animal. The Tenth Circuit is curious, but wants to make sure this animal doesn't bite. I think the court will find it doesn't and make the change.<br />
<br />
*Perhaps a year ago, I phoned the Second Circuit to inquire about the status of its audio policy. At the time, the clerk's office said that the idea of online access had been floated, but that the court was in the process of a renovation. Once that work was done, the clerk's office said, the court would be in a better position to take up the question. With the <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/01/02/you-can-go-home-again-second-circuit-to-return-monday-as-courthouse-reopens/">renovation now complete</a>, will the Second Circuit increase access?<br />
<br />
*The Eleventh Circuit has already made significant progress. Its <a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2011/11/11th-circuit-some-progress-on-argument.html">previous policy</a> was even worse than the <a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2013/05/letter-to-dc-circuit-re-audio-access.html">D.C. Circuit's</a>: no public access (even for parties and even for closed cases). In 2010, I wrote letters to several circuits, asking for online access to argument audio. Eleventh Circuit <a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2010/07/judges-series-chief-judge-joel-dubina.html">Chief Judge Joel Dubina</a> kindly <a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9afsss8C6tWNDYxYjc4MzMtMDQwYy00MzM3LWJmMDQtNWNlZDRlZGQwNjlj/edit?hl=en">responded</a> that the court would consider the idea, though it did not make immediate change. In 2012, the Eleventh Circuit <a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9afsss8C6tWLTJ4NU5sS2xfbzg/edit?usp=sharing">began offering audio CDs for purchase</a>. With the big leap to public audio already made, perhaps the court will be open to posting online, now just an incremental change? [fn1]<br />
<br />
*Posting online would save court staff time in these four circuits. Staff in "CD" circuits would not have to produce CD copies and mail them. The Tenth Circuit could avoid reviewing motions and sending emails. All four circuits could field fewer calls and process fewer forms. Interested parties could just point and click online.<br />
<br />
Stay tuned.<br />
____<br />
1) The Fourth Circuit also kindly <a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9afsss8C6tWYzNlYjRiNWUtNGUxOC00ZDJjLTlhMmEtYjU1M2E1ZGYxZDQz/edit?hl=en">responded</a> to the 2010 letter and took action within months to <a href="http://appellatedaily.blogspot.com/2011/03/fourth-circuit-to-post-argument-audio.html">put audio on the Internet</a>. As with all courts, the Fourth Circuit undoubtedly had been thinking about changes, independent of outside voices. But it is heartening that the courts do consider citizen viewpoints.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-981040258059618317.post-7477476286736159482013-05-23T14:10:00.000-04:002013-05-23T14:29:12.266-04:00Hypothesis About D.C. Circuit Vacancies<span style="font-family: inherit;">I have a hypothesis (not tested by research yet) that one of the reasons the D.C. Circuit vacancies have ballooned to four, and three of them have dragged on for years, is that D.C. does not have voting Senators.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Other circuits have Senators for the states within them. Voters and others can question those Senators about what they are doing to move the process along. The Federal Circuit is also Senator-less. But its nominees face less opposition, since it is a specialized court and not typically viewed as a farm team for the Supreme Court, as the D.C. Circuit is.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com