on Nov 15, 2013 at 9:05 am
- At Bloomberg View, Noah Feldman discusses a recent decision by the First Circuit upholding a conviction for translating pro-jihad writings from Arabic into English and uploading them onto the Internet. Feldman contends that “[t]he real culprit here is not the 1st Circuit but the Supreme Court in” its 2010 decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, holding that the “federal government may prohibit providing non-violent material support for terrorist organizations including legal services and advice.”
- At this blog, Rory Little reports on Wednesday’s oral argument in Fernandez v. California, in which the Justices are considering whether a defendant must be personally present and objecting when police officers ask a co-tenant for consent to conduct a warrantless search.
- Jesse J. Holland of the Associated Press reports on Wednesday’s oral argument in Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall, in which the Court is considering a casino employee’s argument that an agreement between the casino and a union to recognize the union as an exclusive bargaining representative without holding secret ballot-box elections violates federal laws that prohibit the two from exchanging “thing[s] of value.”
- At ACSblog, Valerie Schneider weighs in on the recent announcement (which Lyle covered for this blog) that the parties in Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action had agreed to a settlement. She argues that “[a]fter hundreds of years of legal discrimination based on race, communities protected by the Fair Housing Act need a tool to combat the much more subtle forms of discrimination that persist today – disparate impact analysis is that tool.”
- At this blog, Lyle reports on the federal government’s recent filing in a challenge to a federal law that bans gun dealers from selling handguns to minors.
- Also at this blog, John Elwood looks at the cases that were relisted from last week’s Conference.
- At Reuters, Joan Biskupic reports on the recent oral arguments in the Fifth Circuit in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the challenge to the university’s consideration of race in its undergraduate admissions process.
[Disclosure: Kevin Russell, of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among counsel to the petitioner in this case. However, I am not affiliated with the firm.]