Should what goes on in the jury room stay in the jury room? Not always, according to a recent D.C. Circuit Court opinion on post-verdict challenges of juror misconduct. The court has carved out an exception to the No-Impeachment Rule when there is an allegation of racial or ethnic bias.

The Court's decision allowing judges to investigate jurors is narrow; only when there is a constitutional right at stake. In this case, the judge did not err in inquiring about jurors after a verdict was made. The constitutional right of the defendant was in jeopardy based on an allegation of racial or ethnic bias of one juror.

The D.C. Circuit Court takes the lead, and the rest shall follow. Back in January of this year, the court found President Obama's recess appointments unconstitutional. Now the Third Circuit is following in its footsteps with a similar decision.

The circumstances of Obama's recess appointments involve a fight over technicalities much like an old Friends episode where Ross would continue to declare to Rachel, "We were on a break!"

When you've argued at least 20 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, and worked in the Solicitor General's Office for two different administrations (Bush II and Obama), and Jeffrey Toobin, author of The Nine, (a personal favorite) writes a New Yorker feature on you, titled, "The Supreme Court Nominee-in-Waiting," some idiot blogger shouldn't be wondering who you actually are.

Still ... who is Sri Srinivansan? Who is the man who worked for Republicans, worked for Democrats, and now has been unanimously approved to the right-leaning D.C. Circuit by a left-leaning president -- after years of Republicans blocking President Obama's nominees?

In January, the D.C. Circuit gave the proverbial bench-slap to President Barack Obama and the National Labor Relations Board, holding that Obama’s appointments to the NLRB during a Senate recess were unconstitutional. Earlier this week, the D.C. Circuit did it again, invalidating a rule promulgated by the NLRB that required employers to post notices detailing workers’ rights regarding unions.

The court issued an injunction in April 2012 after two lower courts came to differing conclusions about whether the rules exceeded the board’s authority. The court noted in its opinion that the Fourth Circuit currently has a pending South Carolina case regarding the rule.

When the FDA approves a pharmaceutical manufacturer’s New Drug Application application, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) entitles the manufacturer to a period of marketing exclusivity during which the FDA cannot approve bioequivalent generics. Once the exclusivity period has expired, the FDA can approve generic drugs bioequivalent to the pioneer drug through an abbreviated new drug application.

But there’s a way for drug manufacturers to extend their marketing exclusivity period: The FDCA provides for additional periods of exclusivity for pioneer drug through an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA).

Remember when the D.C. Circuit overturned Osama bin Laden’s driver’s conviction for material support of terrorism last October? It seems that wasn’t the appellate court’s final word on the issue.

Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit agreed to reconsider its take on Military Commissions Act convictions en banc in Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. USA, a case involving Osama bin Laden’s personal and media director.

Police officers executed a search warrant for Jared Cardoza’s apartment and seized more than 200 grams of cocaine, more than 300 grams of marijuana, a Beretta 9-millimeter semi-automatic pistol, a Colt .357 revolver, more than $100,000 in cash, and a variety of drug paraphernalia.

Yikes. You don’t want to be that guy, right?

After the government obtained a grand jury indictment against Cardoza for federal drug trafficking and firearm offenses, he moved to suppress the evidence found in his apartment. According to Cardoza, the police officer who prepared the search warrant affidavit made false statements in the affidavit with reckless disregard for the truth.

Politico proclaims that there’s a “showdown on the D.C. Circuit.” The Washington Post editorial board calls it the “Republicans’ D.C. Circuit barricade.”

After four years of unfilled vacancies on the nation’s so-called second-highest court, the media is finally giving this confirmation crisis the Pay-Per-View boxing-worthy buzz it deserves.

In case you don’t follow the federal judicial vacancies like we do, there are four spots to be filled on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. One of those spots — Chief Justice John Roberts former seat — has been empty since 2005. That’s what we obsessive-court-watchers refer to as “not good.”

Some hostile work environment claims are a little iffy. They are filled with suggestion or innuendo. The summary judgment phase in such claims might be a close call.

Placide Ayissi-Etoh's hostile work environment claim against Fannie Mae is not one of those claims, according to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Three rejected Department of Justice Honors Program applicants will get their day in court after all.

The Honors Program is a big deal. It is “the exclusive means by which the Department hires” entry-level attorneys, and it ultimately determines the composition of the Department’s career attorneys. Three applicants to the program sued the Department, alleging that they never made it to the interview round because of their political affiliations.

Though the Privacy Act generally prohibits government agencies from maintaining records regarding an individual’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, the three plaintiffs claim that senior Justice officials annotated their applications and Internet printouts with notes about their political affiliations.