In a new per curiam opinion issued by the U.S. Supreme Court today, the Justices held that a convicted Ohio killer's "attorneys met the constitutional minimum of competence," reversing a 2008 federal appeals court ruling that his attorneys failed to find certain mitigating factors in his defense in violation of the Sixth Amendment.

How convinced was the Supreme Court of its decision? The justices concluded that:

[t]his is not a case in which the defendant's attorneys failed to act while potentially powerful mitigating evidence stared them in the face,

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in three cases today, two of which deal with juveniles who were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for non-homicide offenses.  The other case involves limits that the Federal Circuit has imposed on patents for certain types of business methods.

Those people hoping for a showdown before the US Supreme Court over the issue of gay marriage got one step closer to their wish today.

Judge Vaughn Walker, the chief judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of California, refused to dismiss a lawsuit challenging Proposition 8, California's ballot initiative that amended the state's constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage.

In a ruling delivered from the bench in San Francisco, Judge Walker stated that the case raised factual issues that required a trial, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.  Supporters of Prop. 8 had asked the judge to dismiss the suit, claiming that US Supreme Court precedent did not extend the right to marriage to homosexuals. 

Judge Walker rejected this argument, however, and stated that the Supreme Court had not limited the right to marry to certain groups.

This sets the stage for a showdown at trial, and then throughout the appellate process.  Neither side seems likely to back down, so you can expect them to take this one all the way to the top - assuming that the Supreme Court agrees to take the case.

See Also:
More Posts on Prop. 8 Lawsuits (CourtSide)

According to a new federal appeals court decision today, one Ft. Worth, Texas suburb has quite a recent history of racially charged student confrontations.

So when two students at Burleson High School sued after being asked to leave their Confederate flag decorated purses in the school's office, they did what many folks might: they sued.

But in an 18-page decision, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concluded that the school official's decision to ban Confederate flagged purses to prevent yet another racial conflict at BHS (the school has quite an unsavory track record in this area), they were well within their rights.

Here's why.

The Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence is, quite simply, a confusing mess when it comes to religious monuments on public land.  So much so that two different cases involving displays of the Ten Commandments heard on the same day can end up with different results. 

For these types of cases, the Court has typically engaged in an ad hoc, fact-based examination of the situations surrounding the monuments in order to determine whether they violated the Constitution's prohibition on advancement of a single religion by the government. 

That being so, the Court should have fun with Salazar v. Buono, oral arguments for which occurred this morning.  The facts surrounding this case are convoluted as well as novel.  The dispute concerns a cross erected without authorization on federal land by the Veteran of Foreign Wars over 70 years ago to commemorate fallen US soldiers.  The cross, which sits in the massive, 1.6 million acre Mojave National Preserve, has been the site of Easter sunrise services since it was first built. 

A federal appeals court affirmed a handgun conviction and sentence today, holding that a federal law that bars juvenile possession of handguns does not violate the accused kid's Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Lucky for the kid, he was 17-years-old when he was originally charged, and over 18-years-old when his appeal was prosecuted. That effectively rendered moot any arguments challenging his sentencing because he was a juvenile. The judges held that since he is no longer being detained as a juvenile, and he isn't under any juvenile supervision,

(U.S. Ct. of Appeals, 4th Cir., Sept. 24, 2009) - A federal appeals court in Virginia overturned a U.S. district court's award of $8 million in compensatory damages and $2.1 million in punitive damages in a lawsuit filed by the father of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder against a hate-speech prone preacher and his church for protesting against gays in the military near the deceased soldier's funeral.

Why did the court overturn the verdict for Albert Snyder, Matthew's father, against Fred W. Phelps and his Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church?

Numerologists attribute special meaning to today's date, 09/09/09, but differ on just what exactly that meaning is. 

The Chinese, for example, consider the number 9 to be the second luckiest number in their numerology, bested only by the number 8.  The past two years, therefore, have had two very auspicious days for the Chinese: 08/08/08 last year, and 09/09/09 this year.

The Japanese, on the other hand, consider 9 to be the second most unlucky number, so today will probably go uncelebrated on the Japanese archipelago. 

Whatever your thoughts on the numerological significance of today's date, however, it is definitely an historic day for the Supreme Court. 

Unless you haven't been watching the news lately (or unless you live in a country that doesn't have an 800-lb. health care problem in the room), you're probably aware that there's a health care debate raging in the United States right now.

Both sides of the debate have accused the other of spreading misinformation about what proposed reforms to the health care system actually entail.  As part of its effort to combat what it perceived as false claims about health care reform, the White House set up an email address where people could report any "fishy" information they came across.

A federal appeals court ruled against the U.S. government today in its ongoing investigation and criminal prosecution of Major League Baseball players accused of illegally using steroids.

Affirming lower court orders quashing subpoenas that sought information about confidential drug tests performed on MLB players, Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski slammed the government for getting names of baseball players who agreed to confidential drug testing, only to have their names seized in a list that federal agents seized on a computer hard drive, but lacked probable cause to obtain under the search warrant.