Justice Souter Retiring

President Obama will have an opportunity to appoint an associate justice to the Supreme Court of the United States. As NPR reports, "Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the Court's current term . . . [but] will remain on the bench until a successor has been chosen and confirmed, which may or may not be accomplished before the Court reconvenes in October."

We will keep you updated as this story develops.

---

UPDATE (5-4 @ 7:49 PM)

Politico confirms that it is likely that the White House will announce Justice Souter's replacement within the week.

---

UPDATE (5-5 @ 8:49 PM)

Apparently, Justice Souter's replacement will not be nominated within the week.

Finally Finals

The other day, Fred pointed out that finals were coming and invited our readers to share their finals rituals with the Blackbook Legal community.

My fourth round of law school finals kicks off tomorrow, and I feel as overwhelmed and terrified as I did for my first attempt two years ago. Even though I have unique study methods that I'm comfortable with, I always have this sense of impending doom leading up to exams. I'm beginning to think it's an anxious law school reality that we all go through.

On the other hand, a lot of my peers seem really calm and collected. So maybe it's just me. Either way, I hope I don't wind up in an exam room with the guy (or girl) who doesn't shower. That would totally screw my day up...which, I guess, is the point?

All Things Chicago!

Mr. T gets called for duty, but doesn't make it to the panel.

The U.S. Marshal from this post was found guilty.

Cops that beat up bar patrons found not guilty.

U.Chi Grad Fudges Transcript, Faces Disbarment

A lurid tale of sex, drugs, and law (well, not so much sex and/or drugs). According to the Chicago Tribune, a former SA at, well, SA, falsified his transcripts in order to qualify for a summer position. Said associate has since hung up his legal gloves and is pursuing an MBA at UIllinois (probably studying how to become Bernie Madoff).

I think the most interesting part of this tale is not the counterfeiting and hoodwinking; rather, what does this say about legal recruiting, the quality of work at law firms, and the relative importance of grades and law schools as proxies for intelligence? I mean, here was a student who was terrible at law school; however, nowhere is it stated that the associate was fired for failing to perform satisfactorily.

Fascinatingly Terrifying...

Google's Swine Flu Tracking Map.

-----------
UPDATE (4-28 @ 8:05 AM):
Here is a law-specific article posted by a commenter about the Swine Flu and Quarantine Laws

Finals Draw Nigh...

Well, BBL-ers-- It's getting to that time of the year where Finals hangs over our heads like the sword on the thinnest string (as if I would have to remind such a studious group of scholars!) This is an open thread; I welcome each of you to participate in answering the following questions.

(1) What are your Finals superstitions (if any)? For example, do you have a lucky pair of socks, or shirt, or favorite McDonalds super-combo ($1 McChicken, I'm looking at you!)

(2) What is your biggest pet peeve leading up to finals? What about during finals?

(3) What advice would you give to 1Ls who may not know how to play the 'game' yet?

I look forward to all of your responses!

Failure to BCC Shows Who Has B's, C's and C's...

Well, not quite...but basically. As a first-year tipster from Brooklyn Law School (which doesn't mind if you transfer) writes:

Phi Delta Phi at Brooklyn extends a membership invitation to all first years with a 3.2 gpa or higher. In sending out the invitation, the org cc'd all of the students that were being invited. Basically everyone with a 3.2 or over (~ top 40%) knows who got a 3.2 or higher but the students that have lower than a 3.2 don't know who's on the list. Talk about disclosure.

Oops. Perhaps the school should create an honor society for the bottom 60% of the class, and send out another non-BCC'd e-mail? This way everyone knows exactly what their status is relative to their peers--parity basically compels it! Plus, why limit prestigious honors to the top 40%? That's so...law school.

No Cameras, Please

Apparently there are more interesting things going on at the Supreme Court besides the magic of dishwashing machines.  The Wall Street Journal reports that, upon appearing before a House Appropriations subcommittee on Thursday, "Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer said that [the] justices remain undecided on whether to allow television broadcasts of court proceedings, despite debate over the issue."

According to Justice Thomas, the justices have "discussed it and discussed it and discussed it," but have failed to reach consensus. Justice Breyer voiced concerns with broadcasting oral arguments because doing so "could detract from people's understanding of the court's functioning [as oral arguments constitute roughly only 2% of any given case]."

But, some members of Congress feel differently:

Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, a member of the panel, told the justices he favored adding television coverage of the court, pointing to broadcasts of the U.S. House and Senate. "It's a very simple matter to broadcast live on the Internet," Culberson said. "There's no logical distinction between the audience in the room and the audience in the country out there."

Hopefully we'll get an answer someday.

Oh, I'm 'Stimulated,' all right...

Broken Hearts

Law.com reports an interesting story about the potential "legal cost" of breaking someone's heart:

[Kris Shubert] sued former boyfriend Kurt Wiksten [for more than $ 1 million] in Palm Beach Circuit Court, claiming her decision to quit her job, sell her home and move to Texas to be with him was based on lies and left her with a personal financial mess.

Shubert claims that her boyfriend had a "duty to . . . disclose any negative aspects of his past [including tax liens and a bench warrant for failing to appear on a drunken driving charge] before she enter[ed] into a personal relationship with him."

Ouch. Make sure to disclose all (potentially) material elements of your past before getting into a serious relationship.

Alma Mater Love...

From ATL:
Loyola 3L has meltdown and accuses law professor of bait & switch.

Perhaps the administration would like to answer my previous concern as well... I move to join my dissatisfaction with unnamed Loyola 3L's.

Law School Is For Everyone?

I think the headline to this piece was missing the following line: "Who Likes Being 150k in Debt."

I have nothing more (at least non-profanity laced) to say.

Meet the Neighbors...Law Firm Edition

Neighbor complains that law firm works too hard, too late, with too much light.

The Effect of the FOIA on College Athletics

During the NCAA tournament last month, Yahoo Sports exposed alleged recruiting violations at the University of Connecticut. The
Yahoo investigation relied heavily on phone records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. UConn, being a public university, is required by the FOIA to make records available to any person based simply on a request which reasonably describes the record.

The FOIA benefits our democracy by providing essential transparency in our administrative state. And, clearly, the FOIA is not to blame for the alleged recruiting violations at UConn. If the basketball team committed the acts alleged in the report, then they deserve any sanction handed down.

But, what effect will the FOIA have on the future of college athletics? Adrian Wojnarowski and Dan Wetzel, the Yahoo Sports writers, made it rather clear that they plan on exposing the “agent-as-recruiter” problem in college basketball. If this “agent-as-recruiter” problem is as pervasive as Yahoo claims, it may end up being the second-coming of Major League Baseball’s steroid scandal.

Needless to say, private universities (e.g., Duke, Syracuse, et al.) are not susceptible to FOIA requests. Consequently, I can’t help but wonder whether the FOIA will ultimately provide private universities with a recruiting edge. If these recruiting violations are as widespread as suggested, should private universities really be insulated from investigations? As one site commented: “Easy, low hanging fruit at these public universities.” This may be true.

What do you think? Are public universities disproportionately burdened by the FOIA? If so, does it warrant a response by the NCAA?

Supreme Court Limits "SIVA" Doctrine

The Supreme Court today in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. ____ (2009), limited its holding in New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), which held in part that officers--in effectuating a valid arrest--may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle in which the suspect was a recent occupant. In Gant, a suspect was arrested for driving with a suspended license, handcuffed, and placed in the back of a squad car before officers "discovered cocaine in the pocket of his jacket on the backseat [of his car]." See Gant, 556 U.S. at 1-2. The Court, via Justice Stevens, held that Belton (if not overruled) no longer "authorize[s] a vehicle search incident to a recent occupant's arrest after the arrestee has been secured and cannot access the interior of the vehicle." Id. at 3-4.

Although the opinion was criticized for a blatant departure from stare decisis, see id. (Alito, J., dissenting) (arguing that, although stare decisis is not an "'inexorable command' . . . constitutional precedent should be followed unless there is a 'special justification' for its abandonment."), Justice Stevens noted in dictum that "[b]lind adherence to [a misreading of Belton] would authorize myriad unconstitutional searches."

For a copy of the opinion, click here. Further, Professor Kerr at Volokh has posted an interesting take on this story as well.

Court to Hear School Stripping Case Today

Back in March, Josh reported that the Supreme Court would be hearing the Safford United School District v. Redding case regarding the constitutionality of school strip searches, and offered his opinion that "the Court should hold the strip search to be unconstitutional."

The Court is hearing the case today, and Professor Kerr at Volokh has weighed in on the matter, predicting "that the Supreme Court will agree with the Ninth Circuit that the strip searches . . . are unconstitutional."

We'll continue tracking the story, and will alert you to any new developments. In the interim, we recommend you check out the briefs (linked at Volokh) and invite you to share your thoughts on how the Court will rule.

Barney Frank, Members of Congress Causing Global Warming

Today is the first-ever hybridization of FAD and Random Musings.

Here's an interesting syllogism for the best readers in the world (i.e. you).

(1) Out of London: Fat people are causing global warming.
(2) Out of Washington: Congressman Frank, representing the general health of Congress complains about his weight-gain.
(3) Therefore, if we got rid of the Congressional Fatties, global warming would either decelerate or be completely reversed?

----------------------
UPDATE (9:24AM): A commenter wonders if the British portion of the syllogism is legit. Here's the press release from the health institute behind "the insight."

Alleged Craigslist Killer Captured

From AP News, via Yahoo News: Suspected Craiglist Killer (and Boston U. Med Student!) apprehended, in custody.

----------------------
UPDATE (1:14 AM) A commenter wanted to know what BU's med school ranking was. It was ranked 43rd in research and N/A for Primary Care and since the denominator of your fraction (students) decreased while the numerator (non-murderers) stayed the same, I would have to say that the ratio has increased. From what and to what, I don't know...

Congratulations to The Blackbook's Top Law Prof!

The Blackbook's first annual Top Law Prof. Competition ended last night. Our final five contenders were:

1. Peter Smith (GWU)
2. Aaron Twerski (Brooklyn)
3. Richard Epstein (Chicago/NYU)
4. Catherine Struve (Penn)
5. Tobias Wolff (Penn)

I am pleased to announce that the winner, by a narrow (but decisive) margin, is Peter Smith from GWU. Collectively, we received just under 500 total votes from our readers in the two voting rounds of the Competition. Professor Smith received about 60% of these votes. I spoke with some readers who voted for Professor Smith, and asked them to explain their vote; their answers are reproduced below, unedited. The comments speak for themselves, and demonstrate how revered Professor Smith truly is:

"Peter Smith is, by far, the best professor I've had in law school. A feat accomplished not by ingratiating himself with the students through corny jokes or a "dazzling" presentation style - but by demonstrating, in a warm and human manner, the sheer force of intellect required to parse legal issues. He was both extremely demanding and extremely giving - of his time, his insight, and his support. I consider myself lucky to have had him as a professor."

------

"Peter Smith is without a doubt the best professor I have ever had. Not only is he absolutely brilliant, but he has a way of capturing the class's attention like I have never experienced before. There are many professors who can make criminal law or constitutional law interesting, but Professor Smith is one of those rare breeds that somehow transforms an otherwise boring civil procedure class into an all-time favorite. He is what every law school professor should aspire to be."

------

"There were times when Prof. Smith's class would end, and I would sit staring at my notes wondering a) how he managed to untangle an extremely difficult doctrine in such a digestible fashion, and b) how the class had flown by so quickly. That was the mystery of Prof Smith - he is neither flashy nor funny, not overly friendly or mean; but he manages to make time fly by forcing you to learn in ways you had never previously done. Even being on call is a unique experience, as he manages to be both terrifying and friendly at the same time - magically able to extract the answer he is looking for no matter what response the student gives. Smith is the quintessential law school professor, who would be able to explain the most complex legal topics to anyone willing to pay even half-attention."

Congratulations, again, to Peter Smith of The George Washington University Law School! The honor is well-deserved, and speaks directly to the skill that is--in my opinion, anyway--the most important asset a law professor can have.

Ninth Circuit Incorporates Second Amendment

If you've been too busy obsessing (or lamenting) over the "results" of the new US News Rankings, you probably missed the biggest news to hit the legal world today: a Ninth Circuit panel issued its decision in Nordyke v. King, incorporating the Second Amendment against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.

As Volokh Conspiracy notes:

The panel avoids the late 19th-century cases United States v. Cruikshank (1876) and Presser v. Illinois (1886) by reading them as simply foreclosing the direct application of the Second Amendment to the states, or the application of the Second Amendment to the states via the Privileges or Immunities Clause. The panel instead follows the Supreme Court's "selective incorporation" cases under the Due Process Clause, and concludes that the right to bear arms "ranks as fundamental, meaning 'necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty.'

We encourage everyone to check out Volokh's coverage; they've already discussed an array of interesting issues including Judge Gould's concurring opinion, and the future of Second Amendment incorporation. As to the latter, Professor Volokh predicts:

[T]he Supreme Court would prefer to consider the incorporation question in a case that involves more common facts, and that doesn't raise the additional legal question of whether nunchakus qualify as "arms" for Second Amendment purposes. . . .[o]n the other hand, there is indeed a split on the incorporation question now, and the Court could certainly agree to consider only that aspect of the case, and remand to the Second Circuit [in Maloney v. Cuomo, sub nom. Maloney v. Rice] for more consideration of the splitless and underexplored question of which non-firearms qualify as "arms." This will push into the background the exotic nunchakus, and will instead allow the Court to focus on the common and important question of whether the Second Amendment applies, via the Fourteenth, to state and local governments.

It will be interesting to track this story's development.