<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Government Information &#187; Supreme Court/courts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/category/supreme-court/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu</link>
	<description>Links and annotations for national, state, and local government publications</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:15:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. Myriad Genetics Inc. et al.</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/06/13/association-for-molecular-pathology-et-al-v-myriad-genetics-inc-et-al/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/06/13/association-for-molecular-pathology-et-al-v-myriad-genetics-inc-et-al/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:17:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright/Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Headlines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=35978</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398 Unanimous Supreme Court decision that parts of human genes as naturally occurring phenomena cannot be patented by corporations.  The decision reversed three decades of patent awards.  From the Legal Information Institute of Cornell University &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398">http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-398</p>
<p></a></p>
<p>Unanimous Supreme Court decision that parts of human genes as naturally occurring phenomena cannot be patented by corporations.  The decision reversed three decades of patent awards.  From the Legal Information Institute of Cornell University</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/06/13/association-for-molecular-pathology-et-al-v-myriad-genetics-inc-et-al/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Peugh v. United States</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/06/12/peugh-v-united-states/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/06/12/peugh-v-united-states/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:53:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Crime/Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=35938</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-62 5-4 Supreme Court decision that tougher sentencing guidelines, enacted after a crime is committed, can’t be used to justify a tougher sentence.  From the Legal Information Institute of Cornell University &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-62">http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-62</p>
<p></a></p>
<p>5-4 Supreme Court decision that tougher sentencing guidelines, enacted after a crime is committed, can’t be used to justify a tougher sentence.  From the Legal Information Institute of Cornell University</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/06/12/peugh-v-united-states/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brief Amici Curiae of American Library Association [et al] in Authors Guild [et al] v. Hathitrust [et al]</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/06/05/brief-amici-curiae-of-american-library-association-et-al-in-authors-guild-et-al-v-hathitrust-et-al/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/06/05/brief-amici-curiae-of-american-library-association-et-al-in-authors-guild-et-al-v-hathitrust-et-al/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2013 16:53:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright/Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Libraries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Telecommunications/Internet]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=35782</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/bm~doc/lca-amicus-hathitrust-appeal-03june13.pdf Friend of the court brief filed by library groups to support established library practices and the concept of fair use in treatment of copyrighted works.  From the Library Copyright Alliance &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/bm~doc/lca-amicus-hathitrust-appeal-03june13.pdf">http://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/bm~doc/lca-amicus-hathitrust-appeal-03june13.pdf</p>
<p></a></p>
<p>Friend of the court brief filed by library groups to support established library practices and the concept of fair use in treatment of copyrighted works.  From the Library Copyright Alliance</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/06/05/brief-amici-curiae-of-american-library-association-et-al-in-authors-guild-et-al-v-hathitrust-et-al/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Maryland v. King</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/06/04/maryland-v-king/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/06/04/maryland-v-king/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:49:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil/Human Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crime/Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Headlines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=35744</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-207 5-4 Supreme Court decision that police can take DNA samples from those arrested for serious crimes without violation of their constitutional rights from unlawful searches.  From the Legal Information Institute of Cornell University &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-207">http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-207</p>
<p></a></p>
<p>5-4 Supreme Court decision that police can take DNA samples from those arrested for serious crimes without violation of their constitutional rights from unlawful searches.  From the Legal Information Institute of Cornell University</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/06/04/maryland-v-king/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bowman v. Monsanto Co.</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/05/14/bowman-v-monsanto-co/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/05/14/bowman-v-monsanto-co/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 13:31:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Agriculture/Rural Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright/Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crime/Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Headlines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=35172</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/11-796.pdf Unanimous Supreme Court decision that farmer Bowman violated Monsanto patents by trying to reuse Roundup Ready soybean seeds for late season planting.  The farmer had argued that the seeds he bought from a grain elevator were not covered by the patent.  The decision stopped short of covering other self-replicating technologies.  From the Legal Information [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/11-796.pdf">http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/11-796.pdf</p>
<p></a></p>
<p>Unanimous Supreme Court decision that farmer Bowman violated Monsanto patents by trying to reuse Roundup Ready soybean seeds for late season planting.  The farmer had argued that the seeds he bought from a grain elevator were not covered by the patent.  The decision stopped short of covering other self-replicating technologies.  From the Legal Information Institute of Cornell University</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/05/14/bowman-v-monsanto-co/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FDA Approves Plan B One-Step Emergency Contraceptive Without a Prescription for Women 15 Years of Age and Older</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/05/01/fda-approves-plan-b-one-step-emergency-contraceptive-without-a-prescription-for-women-15-years-of-age-and-older/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/05/01/fda-approves-plan-b-one-step-emergency-contraceptive-without-a-prescription-for-women-15-years-of-age-and-older/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 19:11:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Abortion/Contraception]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Headlines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health/Medical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Laws/Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=34942</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm350230.htm Press release which announces agency approval of the application to market Plan B without prescription for women 15+.  The FDA action follows an April 2013 ruling by a New York Federal District judge that the product should be available without age or point of sale restrictions.  From the Food and Drug Administration &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm350230.htm">http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm350230.htm</p>
<p></a></p>
<p>Press release which announces agency approval of the application to market Plan B without prescription for women 15+.  The FDA action follows an April 2013 ruling by a New York Federal District judge that the product should be available without age or point of sale restrictions.  From the Food and Drug Administration</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/05/01/fda-approves-plan-b-one-step-emergency-contraceptive-without-a-prescription-for-women-15-years-of-age-and-older/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brief of Amici Curiae American Library Association et al</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/04/26/brief-of-amici-curiae-american-library-association-et-al/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/04/26/brief-of-amici-curiae-american-library-association-et-al/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:32:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright/Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Headlines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Libraries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=34790</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/bm~doc/gsu-amicus-brief-25apr13.pdf Amicus brief filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in the Georgia State University E-reserves copyright case.  Supports the arguments of the university and the Library Copyright Alliance against the Publishers.  From the Library Copyright Alliance &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/bm~doc/gsu-amicus-brief-25apr13.pdf">http://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/bm~doc/gsu-amicus-brief-25apr13.pdf</p>
<p></a></p>
<p>Amicus brief filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in the Georgia State University E-reserves copyright case.  Supports the arguments of the university and the Library Copyright Alliance against the</p>
<p>Publishers.  From the Library Copyright Alliance</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/04/26/brief-of-amici-curiae-american-library-association-et-al/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/04/19/kiobel-v-royal-dutch-petroleum-co/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/04/19/kiobel-v-royal-dutch-petroleum-co/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:34:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil/Human Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crime/Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=34648</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-1491 Unanimous Supreme Court decision that limits the ability of U.S. courts to hear civil lawsuits charging corporations with violations of human rights abroad.  The case involved Nigerians living in the U.S. who alleged that a subsidiary of an international oil company aided Nigerian authorities in torturing and killing protestors opposed to the company’s operations [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-1491">http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-1491</p>
<p></a></p>
<p>Unanimous Supreme Court decision that limits the ability of U.S. courts to hear civil lawsuits charging corporations with violations of human rights abroad.  The case involved Nigerians living in the U.S. who alleged that a subsidiary of an international oil company aided Nigerian authorities in torturing and killing protestors opposed to the company’s operations in Nigeria in the 1990s.  From the Cornell Legal Information Institute</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/04/19/kiobel-v-royal-dutch-petroleum-co/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Missouri v. McNeely</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/04/19/missouri-v-mcneely/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/04/19/missouri-v-mcneely/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:33:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Alcohol/Drug Abuse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crime/Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Headlines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=34644</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-1425 8-1 Supreme Court decision that warrants are usually required before uncooperative drivers can be forced to submit to a blood-alcohol test.  The justices were divided on how to define the circumstances which would allow testing without a warrant.  From the Cornell Legal Information Institute &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-1425">http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-1425</p>
<p></a></p>
<p>8-1 Supreme Court decision that warrants are usually required before uncooperative drivers can be forced to submit to a blood-alcohol test.  The justices were divided on how to define the circumstances which would allow testing without a warrant.  From the Cornell Legal Information Institute</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/04/19/missouri-v-mcneely/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Congressional Authority to Regulate Firearms</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/04/12/congressional-authority-to-regulate-firearms/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/04/12/congressional-authority-to-regulate-firearms/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:36:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Headlines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Laws/Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=34454</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43033.pdf Explores the source of Congress’s authority to regulate guns under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and how courts have analyzed challenges to this authority.   From the Congressional Research Service, posted by the Federation of American Scientists &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43033.pdf">http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43033.pdf</p>
<p></a></p>
<p>Explores the source of Congress’s authority to regulate guns under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and how courts have analyzed challenges to this authority.   From the Congressional Research Service, posted by the Federation of American Scientists</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/04/12/congressional-authority-to-regulate-firearms/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tummino v. Hamburg</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/04/09/tummino-v-hamburg/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/04/09/tummino-v-hamburg/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 15:18:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Abortion/Contraception]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Headlines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage/Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=34350</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/Tummino%20SJ%20memo.pdf Ruling of Federal District Court Judge Edward Korman that Plan B One-Step, the so-called Morning-after pill, should be available without prescription to women of all ages.  Reverses a prior decision of the Food and Drug Administration at the direction of the Secretary of Health and Human Services.  From the U.S. Courts, Eastern District Court [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/Tummino%20SJ%20memo.pdf">https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/Tummino%20SJ%20memo.pdf</p>
<p></a></p>
<p>Ruling of Federal District Court Judge Edward Korman that Plan B One-Step, the so-called Morning-after pill, should be available without prescription to women of all ages.  Reverses a prior decision of the Food and Drug Administration at the direction of the Secretary of Health and Human Services.  From the U.S. Courts, Eastern District Court of New York.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/04/09/tummino-v-hamburg/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Recess Appointment Power After Noel Canning v. NLRB: Constitutional Implications</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/04/09/the-recess-appointment-power-after-noel-canning-v-nlrb-constitutional-implications/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/04/09/the-recess-appointment-power-after-noel-canning-v-nlrb-constitutional-implications/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 13:17:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Govt Personnel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Govt Processes/Organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Presidency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=34336</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43030.pdf Discusses the Recess Appointments Clause of the Constitution, the way in which it has been used by presidents, the recent court decision undermining presidential authority, and the increased Congressional power over appointments if the Supreme Court upholds the Appeals Court decision.  From the Congressional Research Service, posted by the Federation of American Scientists &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43030.pdf">http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43030.pdf</p>
<p></a></p>
<p>Discusses the Recess Appointments Clause of the Constitution, the way in which it has been used by presidents, the recent court decision undermining presidential authority, and the increased Congressional power over appointments if the Supreme Court upholds the Appeals Court decision.  From the Congressional Research Service, posted by the Federation of American Scientists</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/04/09/the-recess-appointment-power-after-noel-canning-v-nlrb-constitutional-implications/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Super PACs in Federal Elections: Overview and Issues for Congress</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/04/09/super-pacs-in-federal-elections-overview-and-issues-for-congress/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/04/09/super-pacs-in-federal-elections-overview-and-issues-for-congress/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 13:13:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Elections/Campaigns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Laws/Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=34324</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42042.pdf Explores what super PACs are, how they developed out of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, and what they raised and spent in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. From the Congressional Research Service, posted by the Federation of American Scientists &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42042.pdf">http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42042.pdf</p>
<p></a></p>
<p>Explores what super PACs are, how they developed out of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, and what they raised and spent in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. From the Congressional Research Service, posted by the Federation of American Scientists</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/04/09/super-pacs-in-federal-elections-overview-and-issues-for-congress/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Transcript, Oral Arguments, Hollingsworth v. Perry</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/03/28/transcript-oral-arguments-hollingsworth-v-perry/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/03/28/transcript-oral-arguments-hollingsworth-v-perry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:47:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Headlines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage/Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=34080</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-144a.pdf Oral arguments in the so-called Same Sex Marriage case before the Supreme Court on March 26, 2013.  From the Supreme Court &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-144a.pdf">http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-144a.pdf</p>
<p></a></p>
<p>Oral arguments in the so-called Same Sex Marriage case before the Supreme Court on March 26, 2013.  From the Supreme Court</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/03/28/transcript-oral-arguments-hollingsworth-v-perry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley &amp; Sons</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/03/19/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/03/19/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:16:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright/Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=33824</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/11-697.pdf 6-3 Supreme Court decision on whether copyright protection extends to goods purchased abroad and re-sold in the U.S.  The court reversed the lower court and ruled against the publisher. The case involved textbooks purchased abroad and re-sold in the U.S. at prices that undercut the publisher’s price.  From the Cornell University Law School Legal [...]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/11-697.pdf">http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/11-697.pdf</p>
<p></a></p>
<p>6-3 Supreme Court decision on whether copyright protection extends to goods purchased abroad and re-sold in the U.S.  The court reversed the lower court and ruled against the publisher. The case involved textbooks purchased abroad and re-sold in the U.S. at prices that undercut the publisher’s price.  From the Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/03/19/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Same-Sex Marriage and the Supreme Court: United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/03/06/same-sex-marriage-and-the-supreme-court-united-states-v-windsor-and-hollingsworth-v-perry/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/03/06/same-sex-marriage-and-the-supreme-court-united-states-v-windsor-and-hollingsworth-v-perry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2013 19:18:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil/Human Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Laws/Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage/Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sex Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=33476</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42976.pdf Discusses two cases before the Supreme Court that represent challenges to laws that impose restrictions on same-sex marriage, including the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.  From the Congressional Research Service, posted by the Federation of American Scientists &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42976.pdf">http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42976.pdf</p>
<p></a></p>
<p>Discusses two cases before the Supreme Court that represent challenges to laws that impose restrictions on same-sex marriage, including the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.  From the Congressional Research Service, posted by the Federation of American Scientists</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/03/06/same-sex-marriage-and-the-supreme-court-united-states-v-windsor-and-hollingsworth-v-perry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gabelli v. SEC</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/28/gabelli-v-sec/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/28/gabelli-v-sec/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:39:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Crime/Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Crisis/Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Laws/Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=33366</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-1274 Unanimous Supreme Court decision that the five year statute of limitations in investment fraud cases begins from the point where the fraud occurs, not as the Securities and Exchange Commission argued, from the point of discovery.  From the Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-1274">http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-1274</p>
<p></a></p>
<p>Unanimous Supreme Court decision that the five year statute of limitations in investment fraud cases begins from the point where the fraud occurs, not as the Securities and Exchange Commission argued, from the point of discovery.  From the Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/28/gabelli-v-sec/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Congressional Authority to Limit Military Operations</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/27/congressional-authority-to-limit-military-operations-3/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/27/congressional-authority-to-limit-military-operations-3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:22:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense/Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Presidency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=33332</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41989.pdf Discusses constitutional provisions allocating war powers between Congress and the President, and presents a historical overview of relevant court cases.  The report then considers the various measures that can be used by Congress to restrict or end military operations. From the Congressional Research Service, posted by the Federation of American Scientists &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41989.pdf">http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41989.pdf</p>
<p></a></p>
<p>Discusses constitutional provisions allocating war powers between Congress and the President, and presents a historical overview of relevant court cases.  The report then considers the various measures that can be used by Congress to restrict or end military operations. From the Congressional Research Service, posted by the Federation of American Scientists</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/27/congressional-authority-to-limit-military-operations-3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Clapper v. Amnesty International</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/27/clapper-v-amnesty-international/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/27/clapper-v-amnesty-international/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:20:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Spying/Intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=33324</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-1025 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the legal right of U.S. authorities to intercept and monitor electronic communications between foreign targets and people in the U.S.  The court ruled that the law’s challengers lacked legal standing to pursue their case.   From the Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-1025">http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-1025</p>
<p></a></p>
<p>5-4 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the legal right of U.S. authorities to intercept and monitor electronic communications between foreign targets and people in the U.S.  The court ruled that the law’s challengers lacked legal standing to pursue their case.   From the Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/27/clapper-v-amnesty-international/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Justice and Security Bill</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/26/justice-and-security-bill/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/26/justice-and-security-bill/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:45:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Great Britain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spying/Intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=33280</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP13-13.pdf Background paper on a controversial British Parliament bill intended to modernize and strengthen oversight of the intelligence and security services and allow civil courts to use closed material procedures to hear sensitive evidence in national security cases.  House of Commons Library Research Paper 13/13 &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP13-13.pdf">http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP13-13.pdf</p>
<p></a></p>
<p>Background paper on a controversial British Parliament bill intended to modernize and strengthen oversight of the intelligence and security services and allow civil courts to use closed material procedures to hear sensitive evidence in national security cases.  House of Commons Library Research Paper 13/13</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/26/justice-and-security-bill/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Legal Issues</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/22/federal-assault-weapons-ban-legal-issues/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/22/federal-assault-weapons-ban-legal-issues/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 19:14:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Headlines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Laws/Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=33224</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42957.pdf &#160; Discusses recent developments including President Obama’s support for gun control legislation and judicial cases post-Heller which have considered state and local assault weapons restrictions.  From the Congressional Research Service, posted by the Federation of American Scientists &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42957.pdf">http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42957.pdf</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Discusses recent developments including President Obama’s support for gun control legislation and judicial cases post-Heller which have considered state and local assault weapons restrictions.  From the Congressional Research Service, posted by the Federation of American Scientists</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/22/federal-assault-weapons-ban-legal-issues/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pretrial Detention and Misconduct in Federal District Courts, 1995-2010</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/21/pretrial-detention-and-misconduct-in-federal-district-courts-1995-2010/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/21/pretrial-detention-and-misconduct-in-federal-district-courts-1995-2010/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:29:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Crime/Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration/Migration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=33152</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/pdmfdc9510.pdf Provides statistics on the number of cases handled in federal district courts, trends, increases in cases involving immigration violations, and the growth of defendants with serious criminal backgrounds.  From the Bureau of Justice Statistics &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/pdmfdc9510.pdf">http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/pdmfdc9510.pdf</p>
<p></a></p>
<p>Provides statistics on the number of cases handled in federal district courts, trends, increases in cases involving immigration violations, and the growth of defendants with serious criminal backgrounds.  From the Bureau of Justice Statistics</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/21/pretrial-detention-and-misconduct-in-federal-district-courts-1995-2010/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Chaidez v. United States</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/21/chaidez-v-united-states/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/21/chaidez-v-united-states/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:08:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Crime/Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration/Migration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=33146</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-820 7-2 Supreme Court ruling that an immigration attorney’s failure to warn a client of the possibility of deportation when pleading guilty to a crime does not apply retroactively to cases in process when a later ruling required such warnings.  From the Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-820">http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-820</p>
<p></a></p>
<p>7-2 Supreme Court ruling that an immigration attorney’s failure to warn a client of the possibility of deportation when pleading guilty to a crime does not apply retroactively to cases in process when a later ruling required such warnings.  From the Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/21/chaidez-v-united-states/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Chafin v. Chafin</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/21/chafin-v-chafin/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/21/chafin-v-chafin/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:07:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Crime/Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drug Trafficking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=33142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-1347 Unanimous Supreme Court  decision that ruled that police did not have to provide detailed records of effectiveness of drug dogs in drug cases.   From the Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-1347">http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-1347</p>
<p></a></p>
<p>Unanimous Supreme Court  decision that ruled that police did not have to provide detailed records of effectiveness of drug dogs in drug cases.   From the Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/21/chafin-v-chafin/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>United States of America, Plaintiff, v. McGraw-Hill Companies and Standard &amp; Poor’s Financial Services</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/06/united-states-of-america-plaintiff-v-mcgraw-hill-companies-and-standard-poors-financial-services/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/06/united-states-of-america-plaintiff-v-mcgraw-hill-companies-and-standard-poors-financial-services/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2013 20:12:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Crime/Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Crisis/Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Headlines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=32734</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/02/05/poors.pdf Text of Justice Department lawsuit against Standard &#38; Poor’s for actions that contributed to the near collapse of the financial markets.    From Courthousenew.com &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/02/05/poors.pdf">http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/02/05/poors.pdf</p>
<p></a></p>
<p>Text of Justice Department lawsuit against Standard &amp; Poor’s for actions that contributed to the near collapse of the financial markets.    From Courthousenew.com</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/02/06/united-states-of-america-plaintiff-v-mcgraw-hill-companies-and-standard-poors-financial-services/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>2012 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/01/04/2012-year-end-report-on-the-federal-judiciary/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/01/04/2012-year-end-report-on-the-federal-judiciary/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2013 21:03:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Govt Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=31892</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2012year-endreport.pdf Discusses cost containment efforts in the judicial branch and urges Congress to act on judicial vacancies.  From the Supreme Court &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2012year-endreport.pdf">http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2012year-endreport.pdf</a></p>
<p>Discusses cost containment efforts in the judicial branch and urges Congress to act on judicial vacancies.  From the Supreme Court</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2013/01/04/2012-year-end-report-on-the-federal-judiciary/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judicial Activity Concerning Enemy Combatant Detainees: Major Court Rulings</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2012/12/18/judicial-activity-concerning-enemy-combatant-detainees-major-court-rulings-3/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2012/12/18/judicial-activity-concerning-enemy-combatant-detainees-major-court-rulings-3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:06:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Crime/Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=31578</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41156.pdf Discusses major judicial opinions concerning suspected enemy belligerents detained in the conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, including all relevant Supreme Court decisions and notable circuit court opinions.  From the Congressional Research Service, posted by the Federation of American Scientists &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41156.pdf">http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41156.pdf</a></p>
<p>Discusses major judicial opinions concerning suspected enemy belligerents detained in the conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, including all relevant Supreme Court decisions and notable circuit court opinions.  From the Congressional Research Service, posted by the Federation of American Scientists</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2012/12/18/judicial-activity-concerning-enemy-combatant-detainees-major-court-rulings-3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bankruptcy Filings Down in Fiscal Year 2012</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2012/11/09/bankruptcy-filings-down-in-fiscal-year-2012/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2012/11/09/bankruptcy-filings-down-in-fiscal-year-2012/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2012 19:40:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Financial Crisis/Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=21066</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://news.uscourts.gov/bankruptcy-filings-down-fiscal-year-2012 Reports a 14% drop in bankruptcy filings for FY2012 from 1.467 million in 2011 to 1.261 million in 2012.  From the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://news.uscourts.gov/bankruptcy-filings-down-fiscal-year-2012">http://news.uscourts.gov/bankruptcy-filings-down-fiscal-year-2012</a></p>
<p>Reports a 14% drop in bankruptcy filings for FY2012 from 1.467 million in 2011 to 1.261 million in 2012.  From the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2012/11/09/bankruptcy-filings-down-in-fiscal-year-2012/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mayo v. Prometheus: Implications for Patents, Biotechnology, and Personalized Medicine</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2012/11/09/mayo-v-prometheus-implications-for-patents-biotechnology-and-personalized-medicine/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2012/11/09/mayo-v-prometheus-implications-for-patents-biotechnology-and-personalized-medicine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2012 13:43:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright/Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health/Medical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=21018</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42815.pdf Examines the controversy over whether there should be severe limitations on the ability of inventors to obtain diagnostic method patents following a restrictive Supreme Court decision in 2012.  From the Congressional Research Service, posted by the Federation of American Scientists &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42815.pdf">http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42815.pdf</a></p>
<p>Examines the controversy over whether there should be severe limitations on the ability of inventors to obtain diagnostic method patents following a restrictive Supreme Court decision in 2012.  From the Congressional Research Service, posted by the Federation of American Scientists</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2012/11/09/mayo-v-prometheus-implications-for-patents-biotechnology-and-personalized-medicine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Authors’ Guild v. Hathitrust</title>
		<link>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2012/10/11/authors-guild-v-hathitrust/</link>
		<comments>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2012/10/11/authors-guild-v-hathitrust/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:07:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alan zoellner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright/Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Headlines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Libraries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court/courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/?p=20468</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&#38;id=232 Text of the decision of Judge Harold Baer Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that Hathitrust’s  mass digitizing of books does not violate Section 108 of the Copyright Act.  From Scribd.com &#160;]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&amp;id=232">http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&amp;id=232</a></p>
<p>Text of the decision of Judge Harold Baer Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that Hathitrust’s  mass digitizing of books does not violate Section 108 of the Copyright Act.  From Scribd.com</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://swemgovdocs.blogs.wm.edu/2012/10/11/authors-guild-v-hathitrust/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
