on Aug 25, 2010 at 9:20 am
Responding to an order by the Court, a federal district court judge in Georgia found that death-row inmate Troy Anthony Davis â€œis not innocentâ€ of murdering a police officer twenty-one years ago.Â SCOTUSblogâ€™s Lyle Denniston reports that the judge, William T. Moore, Jr., apparently was â€œacting as a fact-gatherer directly for the Supreme Court, so any appeal by Davis may have to go directly to the Justices.â€Â Indeed, Judge Moore forwarded a copy of his opinion to the Court.Â CNN, USA Today, the Christian Science Monitor, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution also have coverage of the developments in Davisâ€™s case.
- In an opinion piece for the Washington Post, Katrina vanden Heuvel concludes that as a result of the Courtâ€™s decision in Citizens United, the â€œworld of campaign finance is new, confusing â€“ and very alarming.â€ And Peter Stone discusses the practical impact of the case in Mother Jones.
- At ACSblog, F. Paul Bland, Jr. previews next Termâ€™s AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, scheduled for argument in November. Bland posits that â€œ[i]f the Court uses this case to grant the fondest wishes of some corporate lawyers[,] . . . then [it] could have the kind of impact on class actions that an asteroid landing in Mexico millions of years ago had on dinosaurs.â€
- Bloombergâ€™s Ellen Rosen reports on a Freedom of Information Act case in which the Second Circuit recently denied rehearing en banc.Â One of the parties to the case â€“ an organization made up of twenty banks â€“ has already declared its intention to seek Supreme Court review of the three-judge panelâ€™s decision requiring the Federal Reserve Board to release documents related to the 2008 government bailout.
- Eugene Volokh has a post on the nuances of the Supreme Courtâ€™s original jurisdiction at the Volokh Conspiracy.
- And finally, in the Huffington Post, Richard Albert argues that â€œ[j]ust as the Supreme Court looks to the intentions of the constitutional drafters to uncover the meaning of the original Constitution, the Court should also look to those who wrote and inspired the Fourteenth Amendment to understand the meaning of todayâ€™s modern Constitution.â€