Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup January 15, 2018

Each week, the Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup presents a few tidbits of news and Twitter posts from the past week concerning appellate advocacy. As always, if you see something during the week that you think we should be sure to include, feel free to send Dan a quick email at DReal@Creighton.edu or a message on Twitter(@Daniel_L_Real).

Supreme Court Opinions and News:

The United States Supreme Court announced that it will consider a challenge to President Trumps latest travel ban. The New York Times has this report. 

Can a lawyer concede a client’s guilt when the client maintains his innocence? Is it simply a matter of trial strategy for a lawyer to admit guilt and plead for mercy to avoid the death penalty? These are the questions the Court will answer in McCoy v. Louisiana. The Washington Post has this report. The briefs for the case can be found at this link. The transcript from the oral arguments can be found HERE. The audio recording from the oral arguments can be heard HERE. 

David French has this essay discussing National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, which is a case that has “almost entirely escaped public attention.” The issue presented in the case is: Whether the disclosures required by the California Reproductive FACT Act violate the protections set forth in the free speech clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment. Click HERE for the briefs in the case.  Different perspectives on the case can be found HERE. 

Federal Appellate Court Opinions and News:

Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has taken a proactive step to address workplace sexual misconduct. Chief Judge Thomas has created a committee to review workplace policy and recommend changes to protect employees  after former employees accused Judge Alex Kozinski of sexual misconduct. The Los Angeles Times has this report. 

Sex sells, but there is no constitutional right to sell sex. On Wednesday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Erotic Service Provider Legal Education and Research Project (ESPLERP). Relying on Lawrence v. Texas, ESPLERP argued that California’s anti-prostitution law violated the constitutional rights of prostitutes and clients to engage in consensual sexual activity, claiming that paying for sex was protected commercial speech.  The 9th Circuit was not persuaded by ESPLERP’s arguments and it’s reliance on Lawrence, finding that  paying for sex was not protected by the Due Process Clause. Read the Court’s opinion HERE.