A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a 2007 law that requires trade associations to disclose their members who contribute to lobbying activities.

The National Association of Manufacturers said the law, which requires that the organization release the names of members that contribute more than $5,000 in a quarterly period for lobbying activities, violates their members' rights to privacy and freedom of association.

The Court of Appeals in Washington disagreed, saying there is nothing unconstitutional about the congressional effort "to shine increasing light on the efforts of paid lobbyists to influence the public decision making process."

Supreme Court reporter Jess Bravin just a few moments ago sent along this dispatch from Sonia Sotomayor’s formal investiture, which took place earlier today.



The ritual that began in May when President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court reached its highly choreographed climax Tuesday, with the formal investiture of the nation’s 111th justice.

The Supreme Court is not known for adding surprise twists to its ceremonies, and no one expected any of the participants — principally Chief Justice John Roberts, Clerk of the Court William Suter, Attorney General Eric Holder and Sotomayor herself–to stray from their terse scripts. Expectations were met.

Nevertheless, the simple and elegant ceremony aims to usher a new justice from the cutthroat maneuvering that can accompany a nomination into the very different culture of the Supreme Court, whose members, assured of lifetime tenure and the last word on the Constitution, attempt to see their work as something apart from politics.

Celebrities among the political and legal elite, along with friends and relatives of the new justice, packed the courtroom for the five-minute ceremony. President Barack Obama, following his address to America’s schoolchildren, took a seat in the row reserved for the justices’ guests, along with Vice President Joe Biden and White House Counsel Greg Craig. Retired Justice David Souter, Sotomayor’s predecessor, was on hand, as was Solicitor General Elena Kagan and a bipartisan selection of former attorneys- and solicitors-general: Democrats Benjamin Civiletti, Seth Waxman and Walter Dellinger, and Republicans John Ashcroft, Richard Thornburgh, Ted Olson and Gregory Garre (who, it was announced on Tuesday, will be joining Latham & Watkins). Click here for a bunch of good photos, courtesy of the Supreme Court.

Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor couldn’t attend due to a previously scheduled foreign trip, a court spokeswoman said.

The mechanics involved Holder bringing Sotomayor’s commission–a parchment document signed by the president formally appointing the justice–which then was read aloud by the court clerk. Roberts than administered the judicial oath–a redundant act for both participants, as they had done it a month earlier after the confirmation vote.

“We wish for you a long and happy career in our common calling,” the chief justice told her.

Soon thereafter, Roberts and Sotomayor emerged from the 17-foot high bronze doors at the court’s formal entrance and descended the steps together. In the marble plaza, they stood for photographs, then the chief justice walked off and Sotomayor’s immediate family–her mother Celina, stepfather Omar Lopez, brother Juan and sister-in-law Tracey–joined her for a few shots before disappearing back into the marble palace.

Tomorrow, many of the same parties will return for something far more contentious — arguments in the Citizens United case (click here).

Let the games begin.

Photo: Steve Petteway, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

By Jessica E. Vascellaro

Silicon Valley antitrust lawyer Gary Reback made his case against the Google Books settlement Tuesday, arguing that the settlement is illegal but could be remedied if the Justice Department insists that Google license the books it scanned to competitors.



Gary Reback (Scott Lasky Photography)

In a court filing on behalf of the Open Book Alliance, a consortium that opposes the settlement, the attorney argues that the settlement between Google, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers gives publishers and Google monopoly control over the pricing of digital books. Reback, who was involved in spurring the Justice Department to bring an antitrust suit against Microsoft in the 1990s, co-founded the consortium along with the Internet Archive, a nonprofit that is trying to create a digital archive of the Web, last month. Many members of the consortium, including the Internet Archive, Amazon.com, Yahoo and Microsoft, have filed their own briefs opposing the settlement too.

“Google could never have achieved through free-market competition the dominant position in digital books it seeks through the proposed settlement,” reads Reback’s filing. “Unwilling to compete for share in the open market, Google chose instead to use court process to achieve dominance.”

More...

Antitrust Lawyer Slams Google Book Pact - Digits - WSJ

There wasn’t a whole lot of legal news that broke over the weekend, but we do want to get you up to speed on an interesting and provocative ruling out of the Ninth Circuit.

A three-judge panel last Friday ruled that a a Muslim man who was detained for weeks as a material witness in a terrorism case can sue former attorney general John Ashcroft. In so ruling, the panel rejected a bid for absolute legal immunity by Ashcroft.

The ruling paved the way for a lawsuit brought by Abdullah al-Kidd, a U.S. citizen who was taken into custody at a ticket counter at Washington’s Dulles airport in 2003, while he was on his way to Saudi Arabia to study Islamic law and Arabic. Click here for the story, from the WaPo; click here for the Ninth Circuit opinion.

The backstory: After 9/11, the Justice Department and FBI launched an aggressive policy in which they vowed to take “suspected terrorists off the street” to disrupt possible al-Qaeda plots. As part of this effort, law-enforcement officials ramped up their use of the so-called material witness statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3144, which allows material witnesses to be held to ensure the giving of their testimony in criminal proceedings or to a grand jury.

Al-Kidd and his attorneys argued that Ashcroft knew or should have known that the material witness statute was being applied in an abusive manner. Ashcroft, who is being defended by the Justice Department, maintained that the case should be dismissed both because he had no personal involvement in al-Kidd’s detention and because he enjoyed broad protection from lawsuits.

But Judges Milan D. Smith Jr. and David R. Thompson disagreed, writing that Ashcroft was not entitled to absolute legal immunity and that authorities had detained al-Kidd in part to conduct an investigation of his activities, without probable cause. Judge Carlos T. Bea wrote a partial dissent. All three judges were appointed by Republican presidents.

Al-Kidd was confined in a high-security cell lit 24 hours a day, according to the opinion. He was strip-searched and transported, in shackles, across three states for 16 days before a court ordered his release. Authorities could not offer evidence of criminal wrongdoing by al-Kidd, and he never testified in a court proceeding.

For more than 15 months after his release, al-Kidd was forced to live with his parents-in-law in Nevada, curtail his travel and report to a probation officer. At the time, authorities said they wanted al-Kidd to testify in connection with a visa fraud case against Sami Omar al-Hussayen. Al-Hussayen ultimately was acquitted of charges that he provided material support to terrorists.

Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller declined to comment on the al-Kidd ruling. A spokesman for Ashcroft said, “We will review the decision.”

A 1976 Springfield law aimed at preventing gays and lesbians from soliciting same-sex encounters was expected to be removed from that city’s ordinances on Tuesday night.

The ordinance, which makes it illegal to solicit sex from someone of the same gender, came under fire in June during the annual PrideFest celebration. City Attorney Dan Wichmer has called the law unconstitutional.

Councilman Doug Burlison told the Springfield News-Leader that the law came to his attention amid the outcry in June, and he has called for its removal.

“I’m looking forward to getting this action completed,” he said.

In July, the Gay and Lesbian Center of the Ozarks praised the potential removal of the ordinance from Springfield’s books.

It’s a funny thing, this notion of “stare decisis.” Supreme Court justices can pay great deference to it — the custom of upholding earlier decisions — in certain circumstances. In other cases, however, they’ll just toss the notion out the window.

A Washington Post article out Tuesday explores this notion in advance of Wednesday’s highly anticipated arguments in the Citizens United case. (Click here and here for earlier LB posts on the case.)

The case, as characterized by the WaPo, pits a conservative group’s campaign film about Hillary Rodham Clinton against federal campaign finance laws. The court has said it’s mulling overturning two decisions that said government has an interest in restricting the political activities and speech of corporations.

The WaPo explains:

There are two precedents at stake in Wednesday’s rehearing. One is the court’s 1990 decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, in which it upheld a state law that said corporations could be barred from spending their profits to urge a candidate’s election or defeat.

The second is part of the 2003 decision upholding Congress’s Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The court ruled 5 to 4 that Congress may curtail corporate spending on advertising that mentions a candidate shortly before an election, even if it does not explicitly support or oppose that person.

But to overrule one — or both — of these decisions is almost certain to elicit cries that the court is abandoning what should be a primary goal — protecting its precedents.

“Overruling Austin or McConnell in this case would be unwarranted and unseemly,” former solicitor general Seth P. Waxman earlier told the court on behalf of McCain and other congressional sponsors. “Stare decisis requires respect for precedents absent a special justification for overruling them. No such justification exists.” (Gibson Dunn’s Ted Olson will argue the case for the conservative group, Citizens United. For a piece penned by him in today’s WSJ, click here.)

That said, the court regularly rejects precedents, in ways urged by both conservatives and liberals.

The court ruled in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick that the Constitution contains no protection for gay rights. Justices overturned the decision 17 years later, with Kennedy writing: “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today.”

Steven R. Shapiro of the American Civil Liberties Union told the WaPo that the court, the only body that can remedy a constitutional mistake, should reexamine the free-speech questions raised by McCain-Feingold.

“Stare decisis does matter, and justices should think long and hard before overturning decisions” of previous courts, Shapiro said. “But you can’t have a system that says if you make a mistake, it must stand forever.”

A small change in concealed handgun laws has created safety concerns among Houston police officers who work the streets.

The new law removes the penalty for failing to show a police officer a concealed handgun license (CHL) when stopped by an officer who asks for identification. The law went into effect Sept. 1. Previously, if a person was carrying a hidden weapon and failed to present the CHL, they could lose the license for one year.

Houston police officers suggested that licensed handgun holders continue to show their credentials, even if not required to by the law. It will defuse any potential problems or miscommunications, they said.

More...

Houston police wary of revised gun law | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

The Wayne County prosecutor's office is opening a new session of its free eight-week Citizens Academy.

The classes start Tuesday evening and run through Oct. 27. They're being held weekly from 6-9 p.m. at the S.A.E. Building at Henry Ford Community College in Dearborn.

The prosecutor's office says the course seeks to give the public insight into the criminal justice system as it operates in Wayne County.

Classes will cover crime investigation and will give citizens a chance to talk with experts in various areas of the justice system.

Prosecutor Kym Worthy held the first Citizens Academy in 2008 in Detroit.

More...

Welcome to Wayne County, Michigan

A woman journalist was convicted Monday of public indecency for wearing trousers, but was spared a sentence of flogging. A defiant Lubna Hussein said she would not pay a $200 fine and would take a month in prison instead to protest Sudan's draconian morality laws.

The 43-year old journalist has set out to challenge the police and courts since her arrest in July by insisting the case go to trial, aiming to embarrass the Khartoum government with the publicity. Her prosecution — and the prospect that she could get the full sentence of 40 lashes — drew an international outcry.

The judge's decision to impose a fine equivalent to $200 appeared to be an attempt to curb the criticism.

"I will not pay a penny," Hussein, who during the court session wore the same trousers that sparked her arrest, told The Associated Press after the ruling.

During the session, police rounded up about 40 women protesting outside the courthouse in support of Hussein, some of them wearing trousers as well in a sign of solidarity.

Sudan's government implements a conservative version of Islamic law in the north. Under public indecency laws, anyone committing an act or wearing clothing deemed indecent can be punished with a flogging or a fine, but lawyers and human rights groups say the law is too vague and arbitrary. In the capital the "public order" police enforce the laws, breaking up parties and scolding men and women who mingle in public.

More...

The Associated Press: No flogging for trouser-wearing woman in Sudan



Sudanese journalist and U.N. staffer Lubna Hussein, wearing the same trousers that had sparked her arrest, is seen outside the court where she was convicted of violating the public indecency law by wearing trousers outdoors and fined US$ 200, in Khartoum, Sudan Monday, Sept. 7, 2009. Lubna Hussein was among 13 women arrested July 3 in a raid by the public order police after which ten of the women were fined and flogged two days later, but Hussein said Friday she would rather go to jail than pay any fine, out of protest at the nation's strict laws on women's dress. (AP Photo/Abd Raouf)

by Stephen Lendman

Monday, 7 September 2009

Massachusetts may be a trial balloon for what federal authorities plan everywhere as the fall flu season approaches, to be followed by hyped reports of nationwide Swine Flu outbreaks, perhaps caused by the vaccines intended to prevent them.

Fact check:

• no Swine Flu threat exists;
• reported H1N1 infections and deaths are uncorroborated;
• WHO predicting a global pandemic affecting "as many as two billion people....over the next two years" is falsified hype unless a diabolical depopulation scheme (by vaccines or other means) plans to create one;
• vaccines don't protect against diseases they're designed to prevent and often cause them;
  all vaccines contain harmful toxins, including mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, phenoxyethanol (antifreeze), and squalene adjuvants that weaken and can destroy the human immune system, making it vulnerable to many annoying to life-threatening illnesses; and
• evidence suggests that the H1N1 strain was bioengineered in a US laboratory, and the vaccines being produced for it are extremely hazardous and potentially lethal.

Under no circumstances should anyone submit to them even if threatened with fines, quarantine, or incarceration.

Read more:

Martial Law Alert Over Swine Flu

There odor be a law

Unlike the rising sun and the Brooklyn Dodgers, some good things move from west to east across this great land.

Case in point: A bill under consideration by the Honolulu City Council making it illegal to bring onto city buses "odors that unreasonably disturb others or interfere with their use of the transit system."

Outrageously odiferous olfactory offenders could be forced to pay a $500 fine or go to jail for six months. Where, we're sure, they'd get a bit stinkier.

We think this is a sweet idea. So we hereby offer a similar sum to the first New York City Council member with the guts to draft, introduce and hold hearings on such a measure in our fair city, where subways and buses are much more congested and, we'd venture to say, people are at least as pungent.

How does a democratic society define an odor that "unreasonably disturbs"? Why, that's obvious: You use the smell test.

Read more: There odor be a law: Honolulu seeks to outlaw smelly public transit passengers

Act sets stage for legal challenges to state statutes, local ordinances

A law approved by the Legislature in June has set the stage for legal challenges to multiple state statutes and local ordinances that interfere with professed religious beliefs, according to an article published by the Tennessee Municipal League.

"Tennessee state and local governments will now face an uphill battle in upholding laws of general applicability when someone claiming religious offense cries foul," the article states.

It cites examples from other states that have enacted a similar "Religious Freedom Restoration Act," including:

n A 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in July that struck down a Euless, Texas, ordinance prohibiting animal sacrifice within the city limits.

n A June decision in another Texas case that invalidated a zoning ordinance that prohibited locating a halfway house for convicts in some areas when the facility was to be operated by a minister.

n A 2008 Washington, D.C., case that voided a regulation forbidding firemen from having facial hair, "despite ample evidence showing the danger it can cause."

More...

Law on religion causes unease Knoxville News Sentinel

Work by incoming Sen. LeMieux, his law firm draws scrutiny

Florida's new senator, transformed from little-known insider to major political figure, is facing scrutiny of his dealings at his law firm.



Gov. Charlie Crist chose his political shadow and former chief of staff, George LeMieux, to stand in as Florida's U.S. senator until Crist can seek the seat himself in the 2010 election. AL DIAZ/MIAMI HERALD STAFF

The law firm, chaired by LeMieux, helped foreign workers get visas last fall to help build a hotel and condos in Miami, depriving dozens of Floridians jobs at a time of rising unemployment. CBS4 News in Miami first reported the law firm's efforts, which included persuading the U.S. State Department that the Mexican workers had special skills that Americans didn't. In a statement, the firm said Le-Mieux had no involvement in immigration matters.

While serving as Crist's chief of staff in 2007, LeMieux secretly helped negotiate a lucrative gambling agreement with the Seminole Tribe of Florida that was struck down by the Florida Supreme Court as unconstitutional and has triggered a debate over the expansion of gambling in Florida. LeMieux recently helped negotiate a second compact that the Legislature will consider this fall. He has said the compact will contribute more money to Florida schools and will limit future expansion of gambling.

More...

Work by incoming Sen. LeMieux, his law firm draws scrutiny - Florida and Local Politics - MiamiHerald.com

By Linda Ebbing, Meagan Engle and Lindsey Hilty, Staff Writers

A law created to prevent accidental deaths in Ohio schools named after a Lebanon boy will officially be repealed next month.

Jarod’s Law, named after 6-year-old Jarod Bennet who was killed by a falling cafeteria table in 2003, “was well intended, it was to protect children,” said state Rep. Courtney Combs, R-Hamilton. “What happened, which sometimes happens, is the unintended consequences of this law.”

Combs said he believes a new Jarod’s Law will be introduced that “will be more specific on the intent, that it will protect children from falling tables or anything that could be of harm or crush a child.

“We must protect those most vulnerable and young kids are vulnerable at that age.”

More...

Jarod’s Law repealed — how will safety be measured at schools?

Texas law may shift gears in driver's ed

By CAROLYN FEIBEL

The Texas Legislature just passed a law that could revolutionize driver's education in the state, possibly forcing some driving schools out of business and giving parents of teen drivers a powerful consumer tool. The new law could be as significant for driver's ed courses as “No Child Left Behind” was for public education.

The law passed as part of the “Less Tears More Years Act” — a collection of new laws to tighten up restrictions on teen drivers and increase their safety.

The specific provision requires the Department of Public Safety to collect statistics on how many new drivers get into car crashes during the first year after they finish a driver's education course. The collision statistics also will be published, so parents presumably will be able to compare individual driving programs and enroll their children in the ones with lowest collision rates.

More...

Texas law may shift gears in driver's ed | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

DALLAS (AP) — Some northern Texas school districts are scrambling to interpret a state law that requires public schools to incorporate Bible literacy into the curriculum.

The Legislature provided little guidance, no funding for materials or teacher training when it passed the law in 2007.

The law allows for Bible courses to be offered as an elective starting in the 2009-2010 school year and directed the State Board of Education to adopt curriculum standards that do not run afoul of the constitutional separation of church and state.

Attorney General Greg Abbott has said the course was optional but the lessons were required.

Some school districts are offering an elective class while others are embedding Bible literacy into current classes.

In 2006, Rep. Anthony Petruccelli fought a bill to let the governor of Massachusetts temporarily fill U.S. Senate vacancies while a five-month special election campaign was held.

If someone served only 145 to 160 days, as the bill proposed, "it would really be difficult for a replacement to make any kind of impact," he said, according to notes of the March 22, 2006, House session.

Three years later, following the death of fellow Democrat Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Petruccelli has a different view.

Among the many contortions in the current debate:

-- Lawmakers are pushing the same proposal they rejected in both 2004 and 2006, and moving ahead despite the fact the special election process has already begun: The state's chief law enforcement officer, Attorney General Martha Coakley, has already declared her candidacy.

-- Patrick is pledging to appoint someone who will promise not to be a candidate in the special election, even though the governor -- once the top civil rights official at the U.S. Justice Department -- concedes he's been told such a demand could be unconstitutional.

-- When they changed the law in 2004, lawmakers manipulated their rules with a tactic that allowed them to make the change during a single afternoon and evening, preventing Republicans from slowing them down. Now, they're reversing themselves under an accelerated schedule that's moved their first hearing on the matter from October to next Wednesday.

-- Kennedy interrupted the 2006 debate on a temporary appointment with his first-ever speech to the Massachusetts House, urging them to reject the idea. Three years later, Democrats have been inspired by Kennedy to do the opposite.

More...

Mass. lawmakers in contortions over succession law - Boston.com

Sometimes it’s difficult, armed with little other than a delicately worded legal opinion, to discern whether and to what degree a judge is annoyed with one of the parties. But James M. Rosenbaum, a federal judge in Minneapolis, handed down a three-page decision on Friday in which it’s, um, just a tiny bit clearer.

The backstory, as laid out by Judge Rosenbaum:

Late last year, Judge Rosenbaum preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a large shareholder class-action against UnitedHealth Group. Several weeks later, lawyers for two shareholders filed a late objection to the settlement, arguing that the fees for class counsel — $110 million — was excessive. Ultimately, last month, Judge Rosenbaum approved the settlement and awarded class counsel nearly $68.4 million in attorney’s fees, a reduction off the request of nearly $42 million.

Later last month, the lawyers for the objectors asked Judge Rosenbaum to award them some $225,000 in attorneys fees. The request was based largely on the assertion that the objectors’ lawyers helped Judge Rosenbaum see the light on the class-counsel’s fee request, and therefore helped save the class the $40+ million. “As a result of the issues asserted in the Objection,” wrote the lawyers, “the fee awarded was more than $45 million less than the Fee Request.” (We’re not sure what accounts for the additional $3 million the objectors’ lawyers claimed they saved.)

Judge Rosenbaum denied the request thusly:

The remoras* are loose again. The Court has received a motion from attorneys Edward Siegel, Edward Cochran, Stuart Yoes, and Scott Browne (styling themselves “Objectors’ Counsel”), seeking an award of fees. Their motion is emphatically denied.

. . .

Those objecting to a class action settlement are not entitled to a fee award unless they confer a benefit on the class. . . . These objectors have contributed nothing. Instead, in a pleading which may charitably be described as disingenuous, Objectors’ Counsel argue they assisted the Court in finding class counsel’s fee request unreasonable. They claim their efforts convinced the Court to reduce class counsel’s fee from $110 million to $64.8 million. They have the temerity to suggest they are the ones who saved the class $45 million in attorney fees, entitling them to a six-figure fee of their own.

Their suggestion is laughable. If the Court may be permitted an egregious paraphrase of Winston S. Churchill: Seldom in the field of securities litigation was so little owed by so many to so few. Objectors’ Counsel make “outlandish fee requests in return for doing virtually nothing.” In re Cardinal Health, 550 F. Supp. 2d at 753. And nothing is the quantity of assistance they have provided to the Court and the class. Their goal was, and is, to hijack as many dollars for themselves as they can wrest from a negotiated settlement. Objectors’ eight-page-long, two-week-late pleading presented no facts, offered no law, and raised no argument upon which the Court relied in its deliberation or ruling concerning class counsel’s motion for fees. Indeed, the Court expressly rejected the lion’s share of objectors’ arguments directed to the use of paralegals and contract attorneys.

Accordingly, the Court holds, as a matter of fact and law, objectors have conferred no benefit whatsoever on the class or on the Court. Objectors’ Counsel are entitled to an award equal to their contribution . . . nothing.

Wow.

Calls to three of the objectors’ lawyers, Edward Siegel, Stuart Yoes and Scott Browne were not immediately returned. The fourth, Edward Cochran, declined to comment.

So what, exactly is a remora (pictured)? Good question. Merriam-Webster defines it as such: “any of a family (Echeneidae) of marine bony fishes that have the anterior dorsal fin modified into a suctorial disk on the head by means of which they adhere especially to other fishes.” In other words, suckerfish, fish that attach themselves to bigger sea-dwellers, like sharks, in order to gain transportation and protection.

Under a new Texas law that takes effect this week, dozens of prisoners who have been wrongly convicted will become instant millionaires, the Associated Press reports.

They will get $80,000 for each year they spent behind bars, the AP says. The compensation also includes lifetime annuity payments that for most of the wrongly convicted are worth between $40,000 and $50,000 a year.

The biggest compensation package will likely go to James Woodard, who spent more than 27 years in prison for a 1980 murder that DNA testing later showed he did not commit.

He eventually could receive nearly $2.2 million, the AP says.

The AP profiles Thomas McGowan, 50, who is among 38 DNA exonerees in Texas. McGowan spent 23 years in prison for rape and robbery before he was cleared last year.



(Photo of McGowan by Donna McWilliam, AP)

Texas legislators last spring increased compensation and expanded payments to include the estates of deceased inmates as part of the law named for a Texas Tech student who died in prison serving a 25-year sentence for a Lubbock rape he did not commit, the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal reports.

Grabby headline, eh? Yup. Well, that’s just the headline. Now, let’s give you the all too important fine print: The ranking examined not law-school quality — that ranking comes out in the spring — but the percentage of schools’ students who graduated in 2007 who are now working as federal judicial clerks. Click here for the survey, which was unveiled Thursday; here for a writeup by Bob Morse, the director of data research for U.S News & World Report.

Check out that list! What an interesting one, eh? Yale, followed by North Dakota, followed by Harvard, then Stanford, then the University of Wyoming and the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota.

We don’t have much to say about the ranking off the top of our head, but one U.S. News reader couldn’t resist dropping a big you’ve-got-to-be-kidding-me comment beneath the list. “MDT of Ill.” wrote:

Are you sure?

Is the North Dakota data correct? I find it hard to believe that 25% of graduates clerk for an Article III federal judge. It might be that the school doesn’t know what an Article III federal judge is.

LBers, any thoughts?