Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup February 8, 2019
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 Real a quick email atDReal@Creighton.edu or a message on Twitter (@Daniel_L_Real). You can also send emails to Danny Leavitt at Danny@tsalerno-law.com or a message on twitter @Danny_C_Leavitt.
Supreme Court Opinions and News:
The Supreme Court voted this week by a 5-4 margin to a Louisiana abortion law from going into effect pending appeal. The law would have required abortion providers in Louisiana to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissent. The Court’s vote likely signals that the Court will hear the case during its next term.
Justice Ginsburg made her first public appearance since her recent hospitalization for cancer surgery, appearing Monday night at an event at the National Museum for Women in the Arts in Washington, D.C.
Federal Appellate Court Opinions and News:
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge James Ho authored a dissent this week in which he concluded that Title VII prohibitions on sex discrimination do not extend to prohibit discrimination against LGBT workers.
State Appellate Court Opinions and News:
In Texas, the chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court called this week for the state to do away with its system of electing judges by political party when he gave an annual speech to the state’s legislature.
Practice Pointers:
The ABA’s Council of Appellate Lawyers publication Appellate Issues is out with its January issue. The issue features articles about the programming during the 2018 Appellate Judges Education Institute Summit from last November.
- Link
- HT: Howard Bashman
On #AppellateTwitter this week, Ross Guberman noted an interesting split between appellate attorneys writing “this appeal presents the issue whether a court . . .” vs. “. . . the issue of whether a court . . .”