Today’s Orders and Opinions

Jason Harrow | Monday, December 11th, 2006 10:45 am

The opinion in the BP America case now be found here (syllabus here).

The opinion of the Court in Musladin can now be found here. Justice Stevens’ concurrence is here, Justice Kennedy’s is here, and Justice Souter’s is here. The syllabus is here.

Today’s orders can now be found here.



5 Comments »



  1. Two months ago, Justice Scalia observed at the NIAF gala dinner that “[t]he press is never going to report judicial opinions accurately[,] … [t]hey’re just going to report, who is the plaintiff? Was that a nice little old lady? And who is the defendant? Was this, you know, some scuzzy guy? And who won? Was it the good guy that won or the bad guy? [T]hat’s all you’re going to get in a press report, and you can’t blame them, you can’t blame them [the media]. Because nobody would read it if you went into the details of the law that the court has to resolve.”

    The Associated Press prefaced its reporting of that remark as follows: “Scalia expressed disdain for the news media and the general reading public, and suggested that together they condone inaccurate portrayals of federal judges and courts.”

    How interesting that today, having sought to mislead readers by portraying a fairly accurate observation of the habits of the media as an undignified and unwarranted assault on the intelligence of the public, the Associated Press’ first report on this case provides a vivid demonstration of the correctness of Scalia’s observation. “The Supreme Court, in a first-of-its-kind ruling,” says the AP, “concluded unanimously Monday that murder trial spectators were free to wear buttons with a picture of the victim in front of the California jury that convicted the defendant.”

    I suppose that we can expect to see that mischaracterization wing its way around the MSM and blogosphere (although, to their credit, Bloomberg have got it precisely right), but coming from the AP, it is particularly ironic.

    Comment by Simon Dodd — December 11, 2006 @ 3:50 pm

  2. Does anyone have info on 06-207 Ingram v US where Kennedy and Souter voted to grant cert? Cannot find case on 7th Circuit site. Thanks!

    Roger Friedman

    Comment by r.friedman — December 12, 2006 @ 9:02 am

  3. Roger,

    U.S. v. Ingram, CA7 04-2592, is combined with U.S. v. Dawson, CA7 04-2557. Try searching under the latter number.

    Comment by Kent Scheidegger — December 12, 2006 @ 3:04 pm

  4. Roger,
    Per Kent, I think the opinion you’re looking for can be found here.

    Comment by Simon Dodd — December 12, 2006 @ 6:08 pm

  5. Thanks Kent and Simon

    Roger Friedman

    Comment by r.friedman — December 12, 2006 @ 10:41 pm

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.