I Hope this Judge Read the Briefs, at Least . . .

Some considerable buzz is being generated by the opinion of Second Circuit Chief Judge Jacobs in Husain v. Springer, case no. 04-5250 (July 13, 2007).  The case involves a claim by a student-run college newspaper that its First Amendment rights were violated when, after the paper endorsed a slate of candidates, the college president canceled a student election on the ground that the endorsement was an improper use of student funds.

On the merits, check out these posts at Decision of the Day and The Volokh Conspiracy.  For commentary on Judge Jacobs’s disdain for the dispute before the court, see Appellate Law & Practice or this other post at The Volokh Conspiracy.  As usual, The Volokh Conspiracy comments sections are worth checking out.

Do I think Judge Jacobs was a little flip in emphasizing that he hadn’t read the majority opinion?  Yes.  Clearly, Judge Jacobs has no patience for the dispute in this case.  But in reading his dissent, I didn’t get the feeling that he’d given short shrift to the case — it just appeared to me that he didn’t think it was worth the time he had to spend on it. 

That said, I wouldn’t want this to become a common practice.

UPDATE (7/15/07): It’s worth noting, perhaps, that some of the debate is distorted somewhat by misinformation. Judge Jacobs’s opinion concurs in part and dissents in part. Many of the angriest posts seem to presume he was dissenting only. That he concurs in part suggests that even if he did not read the opinion, he was very familiar with the arguments in the opinion.

UPDATE (7/16/07): The Wall Street Journal Law Blog has coverage today. And it looks like I overlooked some of the coverage from last Friday and over the weekend. Professor Bainbridge says not only that he thinks Judge Jacobs is being judged too harshly, but:

I know nothing about Chief Justice [sic] Jacobs, but on the basis of this opinion, I’ve decided to nominate him for some sort of judicial prize.

Overlawyered is on Professor Bainbride’s side, naturally.

Above the Law thinks Judge Jacobs has his priorities out of whack.

BeldarBlog has published an opus (in blogging terms, anyway – more than 4000 words, including both updates and the title) on this case. I haven’t made my way all the way through it yet, but I’ve read enough to know he generally agrees with Professor Bainbridge’s take. And he’s published a second post (another long one) in response to a comment on the original post left by Patterico.

Commenter “blake” at Professor Althouse’s post about the case speaks for many, I am sure, when he writes: “I can’t imagine not having the urge to do that twice a day were I judge.”