Breaking News

Monday round-up


  • Andrew Longstreth of Reuters covers a recent challenge to the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which prohibits civil claims against gun makers and dealers for the “misuse of their products by others.”  The Court has twice declined to consider challenges to the constitutionality of the law; another challenge is currently pending before the Alaska Supreme Court.
  • At the Blog of the Legal Times, Mike Scarcella reports on an amicus brief filed on behalf of a group of former federal judges, prosecutors, and members of Congress, which urges the Court to weigh in on the interpretation of a law that allows defendants to recoup fees if the government’s stance in a criminal case was “vexatious, frivolous or in bad faith.”  The Wall Street Journal Law Blog’s Joe Palazzolo also has coverage.  [Disclosure:  Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents the amici in this case.]
  • David Kravets of reports that the Justice Department has decided not to ask the Court to review a controversial decision holding that employees may not be prosecuted under a federal anti-hacking statute for violations of their employer’s computer use policy.
  • Daniel Fisher of Forbes previews the arguments in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, in which the Court will consider whether a floating structure constitutes a vessel and thus triggers federal maritime jurisdiction. [Disclosure:  Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as counsel to the petitioner in this case.]
  • GOVERNINGWorks features four parts of its five-part interview with Tom here, here, here and here.  The final installment is scheduled to appear online tomorrow.
  • UPI’s Michael Kirkland discusses the Court’s Fourth Amendment cases dealing with intrusive police surveillance and what they may portend for the increased police use of drones in the United States.
  • At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost argues that the Court’s recent decisions in Maples v. ThomasMissouri v. FryeLafler v. Cooper, and Martinez v. Ryan suggest that the Roberts Court is taking the Sixth Amendment right to counsel seriously, but he concludes that these cases provide, at best, a Band-Aid solution to the problem of indigent criminal defense.
  • The Washington Post’s Robert Barnes reports on the Court’s denial, earlier this summer, of a cert. petition filed by former Alabama governor Don Siegelman, which asked the Court to define the point at which a campaign contribution becomes a bribe.

Recommended Citation: Marissa Miller, Monday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Aug. 13, 2012, 9:40 AM),