Mootness and Tory v. Cochran
I’ve been asked whether I think that the death of Johnny Cochran will moot this case, a defamation action in which a California state court enjoined the petitioner from saying anything about Cochran.
March 2005 Archive
Showing 1–50 of 108 items published in March 2005, most recent first.
Congratulations to students
This week, we received favorable rulings in three cases on which we worked with students. So we want to send our congratulations. Today, the Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. City of Jackson that the ADEA recognizes disparate impact claims.
Schiavo Stay Request
Here is the most recent stay request in the Schiavo case. UPDATE at 11:18pm: We are advised that the application has been denied.
Tory v. Cochran Mootness Update
We’re advised (by a student in Erwin Chemerinsky’s class, who sent along a helpful note) that the Court has called for briefing on the mootness question, with a brief from Cochran’s lawyers in seven days and Tory’s lawyers three days after that.
Today’s News – Thursday, March 31, 2005
News on the Court’s opinion, issued yesterday, in Smith v. City of Jackson [disclosure: Goldstein & Howe, P.C. for petitioners]: Madeleine Brand of NPR and Emily Bazelon of Slate; Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times; Charles Lane of The Washington Post; Tony Mauro of Legal Times; Warren Richey
Older workers need not prove intentional bias
The Supreme Court, in a sweeping legal victory for older workers, ruled 5-3 Wednesday that employees need not show intentional discrimination against them based on age in order to win a case under federal law.
Today’s News – Wednesday, March 30, 2005
News on the Court’s opinion, issued today, in Smith v. City of Jackson [disclosure: Goldstein & Howe, P.C. for petitioners]: This Reuters report; and The New York Times has this AP article.
Another denial in Schiavo case
The Eleventh Circuit has denied an apparently last-minute attempt to restore the feeding tube for Theresa Marie Schiavo, a brain-damaged Florida woman whose parents have tried repeatedly – and unsuccessfully – to get federal courts including the Supreme Court to come to their aid.
Title IX rights expanded
The Supreme Court, splitting 5-4, on Tuesday significantly expanded the scope of protection against sex-based discrimination under Title IX of federal civil rights law.
Court conflicted over file-swapping
The Supreme Court put on public display Tuesday two conflicting reactions to the apparently widespread practice of downloading copyrighted songs and movies from the Internet: a concern that software makers may be too enthusiastically encouraging the habit, and a concern that copyright law not be made so restrictive that it stifles new surges of technology creativity.
Transfer of Guantanamo detainees blocked
This is another in a series of reports on the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s June 28 decision in the case of Rasul/Al Odah v. Bush. In a ruling almost certainly generating a new controversy headed for higher courts, a U.S. District judge in Washington on Tuesday barred the Pentagon from sending overseas 13 Yemeni nationals being held as terrorist suspects at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Death penalty case granted
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to rule on the application of the “harmless error” doctrine to death penalty cases. The agreement to hear Brown v . Sanders (docket 04-980) was the only grant on the orders list. The case will be heard in the Term beginning in October.
Medellin case: the Court hesitates
The Supreme Court spent a fascinating hour Monday canvassing a whole host of difficult constitutional and international law questions in a Texas death penalty case, but also spent a good deal of that time talking about ways to avoid answering those questions.
Chief Justice treated at hospital
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, continuing treatment for thyroid cancer, went to Arlington Hospital on Sunday to have “a problem” remedied in a tube that had been inserted last October during a tracheotomy.
Monday’s Argument in San Remo Hotel
On Monday the Court will hear oral arguments in No. 04-340, San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco. The issue before the Court is whether or not a Fifth Amendment takings claim, brought in federal court, is barred by issue preclusion based on a judgment denying compensation solely under state law, which was rendered in a state court proceeding that was required to ripen the federal takings claim.
Opinions Next Week
The Court will be issuing opinions in one or more argued cases on both Tuesday and Wednesday next week.
End of federal appeals in Schiavo case?
UPDATE Saturday morning: News organizations are reporting that attorneys for the Schindler family have decided not to pursue en banc review of the latest federal case in the Eleventh Circuit or review in the Supreme Court.
Tuesday’s Brand X Argument
I’m arguing this case for the respondents – the states, companies, and groups that object to an FCC rule – on Tuesday. The case involves the classification of broadband Internet services under the federal communications laws.
Schiavo case again on the way up
UPDATE at 2:50 p.m.: The new appeal to the Eleventh Circuit puts a strong new emphasis on a claim that the state judge in the Theresa Marie Schiavo case has authorized a “mercy killing” in violation of Florida law, making the resulting withdrawal of food and water a violation of the Constitution.
MGM v. Grokster: Background and Analysis
On Tuesday, March 29, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in what could be one of the most important copyright cases of the last two decades: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, No. 04-480, a case on appeal from the Ninth Circuit.
Monday’s Argument in Medellin v. Dretke
This post was jointly authored with Danielle Goldstein [disclosure: Danielle assisted with the preparation of an amicus brief for the government of Mexico in support of petitioner] Monday’s second case, Medellin v. Dretke, No. 04-5928, involves a little bit of everything – capital habeas proceedings, the International Court of Justice, treaty enforceability, executive authority, and even an overtone of federalism.
Update on Schiavo case: still waiting
As of 8:15 p.m., the Supreme Court had not yet received the expected request for an order to restore nutrition for Theresa Marie Schiavo. There remains an expectation that there will be a filing tonight. If that changes, it will be posted on this site immediately.
Family asks Court to act in Schiavo case
Lawyers for the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo shortly before 11 p.m. Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to order the re-insertion of a feeding tube until lower courts hear constitutional challenges to a state judge’s order to withdraw food and water.
Reply Brief in Medellin
The Petitioner has filed his reply brief in No. 04-5928, Medellin v. Dretke, a case that raises numerous interesting and important issues, and that has had several remarkable developments, as discussed here, here, here, here, here, here and here. (The reply brief is 30 pages.
Court: no stay in Schiavo case
The Supreme Court, for the sixth time in the past four years, refused at mid-morning Thursday to be drawn into the emotional controversy over the fate of a brain-damaged woman in Florida, Theresa Marie Schiavo.
Schiavo case: round two in federal court
Less than two hours after the Supreme Court on Thursday turned aside the first attempt to use a special new federal law to achieve restoration of a feeding tube for Theresa Marie Schiavo, her parents’ attorneys opened a second round in U.S. District Court in Tampa.
Further Updates on Schiavo Case — CTA11 Decision and Amended Complaint
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled 2-1 this morning that the district court was correct to deny Terri Schiavo’s parents’ motion for a TRO because they had failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of any of their five claims on behalf of Schiavo.
Today’s News – Wednesday, March 23, 2005
News on yesterday’s oral arguments in Tory v. Cochran: NPR’s Alex Chadwick and Slate’s Emily Bazelon; Gail Gibson of The Baltimore Sun; Tony Mauro on First Amendment Center Online; Bill Mears of CNN; Michael McGough of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; and Nina Totenberg of NPR.
Appeals panel: Congress did not require Schiavo relief
(FURTHER UPDATE: Attorneys for the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo apparently have chosen to pursue a request for rehearing en banc by the Eleventh Circuit rather than going directly to the Supreme Court.)
Schiavo rehearing denied; two note dissents
UPDATE at 3:28 p.m.: The Eleventh Circuit denied rehearing en banc, with only two judges noting dissents among the 12 active judges voting.
Johnnie Cochran goes to Washington!
Today’s first case, Tory v. Cochran, No. 03-1488, involves an appeal brought by an ex-client of superstar attorney Johnnie Cochran. The client challenges the constitutionality of a permanent injunction that forever prohibits him from “orally uttering statements about Cochran [or] Cochran’s law firm.” Erwin Chemerinsky will argue the case for the petitioner, Ulysses Tory, whose brief is available here.
District Court Judge Denies TRO in Schiavo Case
Judge Whittemore has denied Theresa Schiavo’s parents’ motion for a TRO. The Judge assumes arguendo that the statute is constitutional, and finds irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, but concludes that the parents have not demonstrated any likelihood of success on the merits of their federal claims.
The “Constitution in 2020” Conference
For obvious reasons, now is the season for looking backward—for retrospective assessments of the Rehnquist Court, and, in particular, of the Chief Justice’s influence on the law from the time of his appointment as an Associate Justice until the present day.
Three reversals for the Ninth Circuit
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Tuesday that individuals seeking to build a wireless telephone tower antenna do not have a right to sue for civil rights damages if they are denied a permit. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Court ruled, provides the only remedies available.
Today’s News – Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Here is The Washington Post’s Supreme Court Calendar. Nina Totenberg of NPR has this report on today’s oral arguments in Tory v. Cochran.
Government seeks October trial for Moussaoui
One day after the Supreme Court refused to review the pre-trial appeal of Zacarias Moussaoui, accused of conspiring to carry out the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Justice Department asked a federal judge in Alexandria, Va., to schedule the trial to open on October 3.
Update on the Schiavo case
The much-litigated case of Theresa Marie Schiavo appeared late Tuesday afternoon to be just hours away from the Supreme Court, for the fourth time. Her parents’ attorneys earlier Tuesday filed in the Eleventh Circuit a request for an emergency order requiring the re-insertion of a feeding tube in the brain-damaged woman now in a hospice in Florida (CA docket 05-11556).
Monday’s Argument in Cutter v. Wilkinson
The battle between Congress and the states over the Religion Clauses continues this Monday, when the Court will hear argument on the constitutionality of a statute imposing on states basically the same strict scrutiny test imposed by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 – which the Court struck down in City of Boerne v. Flores in 1997.
Court refuses to hear Moussaoui, recess appointments cases
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear an appeal by Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person charged with a crime in the U.S. for a role in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
More on Today’s Orders List
The Court did not act on No. 04-806, Arkansas v. Jolly, in which the state challenges the Supreme Court of Arkansas’s holding that a delay of almost six years between Jolly’s guilty plea and sentence violated Jolly’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. [Disclosure: we represent Michael Jolly, the respondent.]
Chief Justice on the bench
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, absent from the Supreme Court’s public sessions since October 18, presided as the Court opened at 10 a.m. Monday. His voice barely recognizable, due to the effects of his treatment for thyroid cancer, Rehnquist followed the usual routine at the start of a hearing session.
Argument in Cutter v. Wilkinson
The Court heard oral argument this morning in Cutter v. Wilkinson, No. 03-9877, a case involving a constitutional challenge to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The issues in the case are thoroughly discussed in this prior post.
Tomorrow’s Argument in Dodd v. United States
Tomorrow’s second case – No. 04-5286, Dodd v. United States – is one for the AEDPA groupies among us. At issue is when the one-year statute of limitations in paragraph 6(3) of 28 U.S.C. 2255 begins to run (and, thus, whether the petitioner’s Section 2255 motion is timely).
A public prayer case — on hold
The Supreme Court apparently is not ready to act on a new version of the simmering controversy over public officials who pray before or during their government sessions.
New Cert. Petition
Alan Untereiner has filed this petition, the third installment in the NOW v. Scheidler litigation. Thanks to How Appealing for the link.
Schiavo case on way back to the Court
UPDATE — Monday morning: Congress completed passage of the new legislation early Monday morning, President Bush signed it into law, and attorneys for the Schindler family began a new case in U.S. District Court in Tampa — including a request for a restraining order to re-insert a feeding tube for Theresa Marie Schiavo.)
Court rebuffs Congress in Schiavo case
The Supreme Court late Friday night rebuffed the efforts of leaders of Congress to take control of a right-to-die case in Florida state courts. The Justices refused, for the second time in two days, to get drawn into the controversy over withdrawal of a feeding tube for a brain-damaged woman, Theresa Marie Schiavo.
March Hearing List — and Grokster briefs
The Court has released the list of attorneys who will be presenting oral arguments in the nine arguments over the next two weeks.
Monday’s Argument in Castle Rock
On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Town of Castle Rock, CO v. Gonzales, No. 04-278, a case on appeal from a deeply divided Tenth Circuit en banc decision. The case presents two questions (rephrased here from the more cumbersome questions on the Supreme Court’s site): 1.
Today’s News – Friday, March 18, 2005
Tony Mauro of Legal Times has this article on the Court and its use of international law, specifically in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, which will be argued on March 21. Andrew Kantor of USA Today has this article on MGM v. Grokster, which will be argued on March 29.