On Monday the Supreme Court heard one of the largest patent cases in years, Bilski v. Kappos, 08-964.  Bilski asks the court to really define what can be patented. Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw came up with a mathematical way of predicting energy costs (which naturally fluctuate based on weather and materials) and sought to patent it.  Patents do cover processes, but do they cover a process which does not involve any tools or machinery and does not create anything new? Oral arguments are now complete, and some write ups feel that the Supreme Court did not appear very friendly to the plaintiffs, but only time will tell.  What do you think?  For more information on the case, take a look at the SCOTUSWiki, which includes a preview of the arguments and all the most important documents.  In addition to the lower court opinion, petition for cert, and briefs of the parties, there are dozens of amicus briefs, including one from our own Prof. Collins.

The legal world has struggled with the question of judicial recusal for a long time.  When should a judge recuse himself?  Is he the best person to make that decision, or should another judge weigh in? There are certain standards—for example a judge should not be involved on a case in which she owns stock in one of the parties, but many of these rules are a little vague.  Some states leave it up to the judge to decide, other states allow parties to disqualify a judge, no questions asked.  A recent high-profile case, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., has generated a great deal of talk on the subject.  Congress is now considering whether or not to step in. Also at the forefront of debate is our own Prof. Charles Geyh, who has been studying judicial recusal for the American Bar Association.  More on his project and its findings can be found in this article from Judicature. A nice piece in the National Law Journal sums up the latest. What do you think?  When and how should judges be recused?

Yesterday President Obama signed a law ten years in the making.  The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (passed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010) expands the concept of a hate crime to include crimes based on sexual orientation.  Some are referring to it as the first real civil rights legislation for gay, lesbian, and transgendered people.  After several of the versions of the bill died in various Congressional committees, it was finally passed as an addition to the bill authorizing the defense budget for 2010, which caused some controversy.  For more, take a look at articles on CNN, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times, which includes the remarks of the President.

Today at 11:45 the Washington Post will be moderating a discussion with our own Professor David Fidler on the H1N1 virus, the vaccine, and the government’s role in combating the disease.  Take a look!  You might want to ask a question, or just follow the discussion in general.

Late last month GQ Magazine released its 2009 list of the most powerful people in Washington D.C, with White House Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel in the top spot.  The President, Vice-President and their families are excluded from the list, but other than that anyone is fair game.  The list naturally includes many of the top politicians, including former Vice-President Dick Cheney and presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, among others, but it doesn’t limit itself.  Other contenders include journalists, lawyers (including Chief Justice John Roberts, and Tom Goldstein, the founder of SCOTUSblog), a restaurateur, a hockey player, and the “unofficial stylist” of First Lady Michelle Obama.  It is interesting to see who is influential, and how.  Go take a look!

On October 1, the United Kingdom implemented a potentially far-reaching constitutional change, with the coming into force of Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005.  This statute establishes the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom as an autonomous court of highest appeal, with jurisdiction to hear civil and criminal appeals from courts in England and Wales, and Northern Ireland, as well as civil appeals from Scotland.  (Scottish criminal law is insulated from review by English courts under the Act of Union.)  The new Supreme Court thus replaces the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords (Law Lords), which itself was formally created by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act of 1876.  However, the exclusive power of the House of Lords to function as a court of highest appeal actually dates back to 1399, when the House of Commons ceased hearing petitions to overrule judgments of lower courts, and the power of Parliament generally to act as a court of appeal can be traced back over 600 years to the work of the royal court, or Curia Regis.  In purely institutional terms, the creation of the new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is therefore a major innovation. Full Story »

The U.S. Supreme Court began their new session yesterday, and so far Justice Sotomayor is living up to her reputation for tough questioning.  Interestingly enough, though, there is a lot of press that is not about the cases that the Court is hearing, but about the cases that it has declined to hear.  So far the Court has discussed attorney-client privilege in the Mohawk case, and the ability to question prisoners who have asked for counsel in the Shatzer case, but there is also some interest in the 2,000 odd cases that the Court is letting stand.  There are always a large number of cases that the Supreme Court is not able to hear, and this term it includes cases on students saying the Pledge of Allegiance, Choose Life license plates in Illinois, a death row inmate with developmental disabilities, and the release of documents concerning sexual abuse cases involving priests.  It is an interesting list, and SCOTUSblog has some of the highlights.  Are there any of these cases that you would have taken?

Radio is a pretty common part of our everyday lives.  Even if you don’t go out of you way to listen to it you are likely to catch a bit here and there in stores and restaurants.  Radio gives us news, humor, and music.  Traditionally, they don’t pay artists and record labels for that music.  Two years ago, the Performance Rights Act of 2007 was introduced in Congress.  Its goal is to make sure that artists and labels get royalties when their songs are played on the radio.  About the same time, various artists formed a group called musicFIRST to promote the bill.  Radio stations, understandably, are not in favor of the bill.  It is estimated that approximately one third of minority owned stations would be driven out of business.  Stations have refused to run advertisements put together by musicFIRST, and some are even refusing to play songs by artists associated with the coalition.  Both sides are claiming that their First Amendment rights are in question—the artists to be heard, and the broadcasters to control their own radio stations.  The artists are currently asking the FCC to step in.  What do you think?  Radio stations argue that they provide much needed exposure for artists, and may not be able to manage the extra costs.  On the other hand, artists point out that they should receive compensation for their work. For more information, take a look at the recent Law.com article.

Indiana has been in legal news recently because of the case of Adam Childers, an overweight man who has requested weight-loss surgery as part of a workers’ compensation claim.  Childers, a chef in a pizzeria, was hit in the back with a freezer door a few years ago, and was advised by his doctor that before any surgery to correct the back injury could be effective, he would need to lose some weight.  The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that the pizzeria should pay for both operations. This mirrors an Oregon case in which an employee needed weight loss surgery before a knee replacement would be effective. Some are worried that this trend will make employers less likely to hire people with weight problems. Others feel that extra medical requirements are part of the responsibility of any employer, and are not specific to overweight employees.  What do you think?  More can be found on Law.com, or at the Indiana Law Blog.

We’ve talked about it before, but it always bears repeating—be careful what you put online for the world to see.  This is especially important in a profession like law.  It is actually a relatively small world—your current classmates will remember if you are the one constantly involved in flame wars over student e-mails, and they will remember if you always had a Facebook status indicating that you blew off studying.  It is the same in the legal world.  A recent New York Times article talks about several cases in which lawyers got in hot water for blogging, Facebooking, and tweeting about, cases, clients, judges, and other lawyers.  Make sure that the information you put out for the world to see is really information that you want to be seen.