Welcome to the weekly roundup of legal stories making the headlines, drawing on insights and analysis from Howard Bashman’s How Appealing blog, an invaluable resource known for its commitment to the extensive coverage of appellate litigation.
First, we have an interesting essay by Professor Jack Rakove, in which he criticises Supreme Court Justices for their approach to gun laws, arguing they are playing fast and loose with the country’s history of firearm ownership and regulation. Read the full piece at The Wall Street Journal.
In more Supreme Court news, an analysis by Joan Biskupic of CNN discusses the potential cost of the Supreme Court’s wasted time on ethics. Read the full report here.
No courtroom roundup would be complete without a note on high-profile cases. This week, the key event was Charlie Adelson’s decision to take the stand, marking a significant turning point in this murder trial that has captured national attention. For a thorough report on the proceedings, follow this link to The Tallahassee Democrat’s coverage.
Intriguingly, the Supreme Court also had a trademark dispute on its docket, centering around a crude joke about a former president. The full story, including the Court’s take on this unusual case, can be found in Jay Willis’s Jurisprudence essay on Slate.
Finally, a look at the growing intersection of law and technology, as the Supreme Court grapples with complex cases about free speech online. Ian Millhiser of Vox weighs in on the challenges facing the court in navigating online disputes between officials and constituents. Dive into Millhiser’s analysis here.
For more detailed discussions and varied court-related news, the original roundup post can be found here. Stay tuned for next week’s installment, offering a curated selection of the most important and intriguing legal developments.