As legal professionals, we are aware of the rapid development and continually changing landscapes of the appellate litigation. Therefore, it is essential to stay updated with weekly developments roundups, one such being the compilation at Howard Bashman’s How Appealing blog, the Web’s founding blog dedicated to appellate litigation.
Recent critical issues include the White House approaching the Supreme Court to countermand a lower court ruling that prohibits federal officials from pressuring online platforms to silence certain perspectives. More details on this story can be found in this report by Jacob Gershman of The Wall Street Journal.
There has also been enlightening discussion around how the interpretation of the word ‘and’ by nine justices could dramatically impact the future of criminal justice reform, particularly for individuals convicted of drug offenses. A detailed analysis of this can be found in this post by Madiba K. Dennie at Balls and Strikes.
Additionally, a critical Senate Democrat has advocated for the Supreme Court ethics code in an in-person plea to John Roberts. More on this story can be found in Ariane de Vogue’s report on CNN.
Moreover, let’s focus on a growing ethical divide within the Supreme Court, particularly between Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who are displaying increasingly defiant behavior. This issue is further explored in Matt Ford’s essay for The New Republic.
Lastly, but not least, an examination of whether appellate judges are tendering their retirements too soon or too late can be found in the latest issue of the “Upon Further Review” column in The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.
To stay thoroughly updated on these and other significant appellate news, follow the weekly updates on the How Appealing weekly roundups.