CourtSide - The FindLaw Breaking Legal News Blog

Recently in US Court of Appeals Category

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has not been a friendly venue for President Donald Trump's executive order banning immigration to the U.S. from several Muslim-majority countries. As recently as last month, a federal judge in Ninth Circuit blocked the administration's third attempt at re-issuing the travel ban.

But Trump won a partial victory in the Ninth this week, when judges split Trump's Travel Ban 3.0, allowing enforcement of some, but not all of its provisions. So what's in and what's out? You can check out the ruling for yourself below:

As the saying goes, if at first you don't succeed; try, try, try again. President Donald Trump may be on his third try after his second attempt at an executive order limiting travel from several predominantly Muslim countries was blocked much in the same way as the first.

The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, upheld a lower court's injunction prohibiting the travel ban from being enforced, and minced no words in doing so. With many guessing the case will now head to the Supreme Court, you can read the Fourth Circuit's decision below.

The federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals today struck down North Carolina's voter identification requirement, saying the state legislature enacted the law with discriminatory intent. The court bluntly rejected the statute, saying "the General Assembly enacted them in the immediate aftermath of unprecedented African American voter participation in a state with a troubled racial history and racially polarized voting. The district court clearly erred in ignoring or dismissing this historical background evidence, all of which supports a finding of discriminatory intent."

You can read the full opinion below:

The push and pull of gun control laws and the Second Amendment continued regarding firearm restrictions passed in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. New York and Connecticut passed stricter gun laws in 2013, and a federal court upheld some of those restrictions while invalidating others.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that bans of semiautomatic assault rifles and large-capacity magazines can stand, while striking down provisions against the non-semiautomatic Remington 7615 and limits on gun owners loading more than seven bullets in a clip. You can read the court's opinion in full below:

FindLaw's Top 10 Breaking Legal Documents of 2014

This has been quite a year for breaking legal stories; 2014 has produced some shocking court decisions, grand jury hearings, celebrity deaths, and shady settlements.

Here are the 10 most-viewed breaking legal documents from FindLaw's Courtside blog in 2014:

A federal appeals court has denied Fox's bid to shut down the Dish Anywhere streaming platform. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of TV streaming just three weeks after the Supreme Court shut down Aereo for streaming TV over the internet without permission.

So why did a California federal court give the green light to Dish to continue selling a service so similar to Aereo?

Fox had argued that Dish "engages in virtually identical conduct when it streams Fox's programming to Dish subscribers over the Internet--albeit also in violation of an express contractual prohibition--has repeatedly raised the same defenses as Aereo which have now been rejected by the Supreme Court."

Fox asked the 9th Circuit to impose a preliminary injunction, one that would put a halt to the service.

In a short four-page opinion (attached below), the judges found that Fox's claim that it would be "irreparably harmed" without an immediate block to Hopper was not credible.

A federal appeals court has released a secret Justice Department memo that justifies a 2011 drone attack that killed Anwar al Awlaki, an American-born Islamist preacher and suspected al Qaeda leader.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals released a redacted version of the secret Obama administration memorandum on Monday. The memo (which starts on page 67 after the opinion) states that since the U.S. government considered al Awlaki to be an "operational leader" of an "enemy force," it was legal for the Central Intelligence Agency to attack him with a drone even though he was a U.S. citizen.

The memo says the killing was further justified under Congressional authorization for the use of U.S. military force following the Sept. 11, 2001 hijacked-plane attacks.

The Obama administration released the memo in response to a court order following Freedom of Information lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times.

"High-level government officials have concluded, on the basis of al-Aulaqi's activities in Yemen, that al-Aulaqi is a leader of (Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) whose activities in Yemen pose a 'continued an imminent threat' of violence to United states persons and interests," the document said.

Awlaki was killed in what U.S. officials acknowledged at the time was a CIA drone strike in Yemen on September 30, 2011, Reuters reports. Another American citizen, Samir Khan, was killed in the same attack, although U.S. officials have said that Khan was not intentionally targeted.

The Seventh Circuit has written a scathing rejection of a "scandalous" class-action settlement by in which a lawyer inserted his father-in-law as a named plaintiff and negotiated a $2 million advance on his fee.

Judge Richard Posner wrote in the opinion (attached below) that the lower court should have heeded dire warning signs. 

"Almost every danger sign in a class action settlement that our court and other courts have warned district judges to be on the lookout for was present in this case," Posner wrote. "The district court approved a class action settlement that is inequitable-- even scandalous."

Lead attorney Paul M. Weiss' agreement was structured to pay him and his co-counsel $11 million. 

Though the settlement was valued at $90 million, the class "could not expect to receive more than $8.5 million from the settlement, given all the obstacles that the terms of the settlement strewed in the path of the class members," Posner wrote.

FCC's Net Neutrality Rules Struck Down by D.C. Circuit

A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down the FCC’s open Internet rules, in a ruling that could give broadband providers more room to charge content companies for faster speeds.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled (see full opinion below) that the FCC lacked the authority to impose anti-discrimination rules because it had failed to classify broadband Internet as a common-carrier service.

The ruling is a blow to the concept of net neutrality, and opens the door for Verizon (and other Internet service providers) to offer managed services or other arrangements where content providers could pay to increase the speed to their content. The Wall Street Journal reports that Verizon (the plaintiff in this case) has indicated it would pursue such an arrangement if it was permitted to do so.

The FCC rules were designed to ensure Internet service providers treat similar content on broadband pipes equally. By enforcing net neutrality, the court found, the agency was imposing rules that didn’t apply to carriers.

'Birther' Suit Against Esquire Magazine Dismissed

"Birther" publisher and founder of conservative website WorldNetDaily, Joseph Farah had his defamation suit against Esquire Magazine dismissed, with the Court upholding the publication's right to political satire.

The suit began in June 2011, when Farah and author Jerome Corsi sued Esquire for running a parody article regarding the release of Corsi's newest book entitled "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to Be President."

Esquire's offending article, penned by journalist Mark Warren, lambasted Corsi and Farsi -- the book's publisher -- with a fake news story about Farsi pulling the book from shelves, denying its existence, and offering refunds.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed on Tuesday (see below) that Farah and Corsi had no case for defamation, based on the fact that the article was clearly satire and "satirical speech enjoys First Amendment protection."

Considering the article in context, the Court denied that a reasonable reader could have mistaken the article for "real news." In addition, commenting on Farah and Corsi's beliefs that President Obama is ineligible for the presidency (the "Birther" mindset) is also protected political speech.