Monday round-up

Briefly:

• Andrew Longstreth ofReuterscovers a recent challenge to the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which prohibits civil claims against gun makers and dealers for the misuse of their products by others. The Court has twice declined to consider challenges to the constitutionality of the law; another challenge is currently pending before the Alaska Supreme Court.
• At theBlog of the Legal Times, Mike Scarcella reports on anamicusbrief filed on behalf of a group of former federal judges, prosecutors, and members of Congress, which urges the Court to weigh in on the interpretation of a law that allows defendants to recoup fees if the governments stance in a criminal case was vexatious, frivolous or in bad faith. TheWall Street Journal Law Blogs JoePalazzolo also has coverage. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents the amici in this case.]
• David Kravetsof Wired.com reports that the Justice Department has decided not to ask the Court to review a controversial decision holding that employees may not be prosecuted under a federal anti-hacking statute for violations of their employers computer use policy.
• Daniel Fisher ofForbespreviews the arguments inLozman v. City of Riviera Beach, in which the Court will consider whether a floating structure constitutes a vessel and thus triggers federal maritime jurisdiction.[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as counsel to the petitioner in this case.]
• GOVERNINGWorks features four parts of its five-part interview with Tomhere,here, hereandhere. The final installment is scheduled to appear online tomorrow.
• UPIs Michael Kirkland discusses the Courts Fourth Amendment cases dealing with intrusive police surveillance and what they may portend for the increasedpolice use of drones in the United States.
• At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost argues that the Courts recent decisions inMaples v. Thomas,Missouri v. Frye,Lafler v. Cooper, andMartinez v. Ryansuggest that the Roberts Court is taking the Sixth Amendment right to counsel seriously, but he concludes that these cases provide, at best, a Band-Aid solution to the problem of indigent criminal defense.
• TheWashington Posts Robert Barnes reports on the Courts denial, earlier this summer, of a cert. petition filed by former Alabama governor Don Siegelman, which asked the Court to define the point at which a campaign contribution becomes a bribe.