Some Rehnquist Papers Made Public: At Legalities, Jan Greenburg reported on yesterday's release of a few of former Chief Justice Rehnquist's papers. She also provides this link to Adam Liptak and Jonathan Glater's report of what researchers came across. While some of the papers revealed a personal struggle over whether or not Rehnquist should recuse himself on a case, the more blog-worthy papers revealed Rehnquist's less serious side. For example, Rehnquist once suggested an annual skit. He wrote: "I would enjoy seeing what each annual crop of law clerks, together with such help from the Justices that they might wish, could do in the way of a gridiron show or other parody or satire on the court." Unfortunately, Liptak and Glater did not find the majority of papers to be very stimulating. They characterize the documents as "dry as the pages themselves." Levine says the case files "shed little light on what drove his decision-making." Not all of the papers have been released. Greenburg reports Rehnquist dictated that his files remain private until the death of every Justice who was sitting with them in a particular term. "That means we only have access to cases over a three-year period, since John Paul Stevens joined the Court in 1975."

The Eighth Circuit Rules on Extraterritorial Enforcement of Arrest Warrants: At Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr has this interesting post on Engleman v. Murray, an Eighth Circuit decision handed down yesterday. The facts of the case make for an interesting decision on the enforcement of an Arkansas arrest warrant in Oklahoma. Apparently, Engleman made a 911 call and gave his address as "24512 Van Fleet Road, Siloam Springs, Arkansas." When police investigated the call, they discovered that an Arkansas warrant was out for Engleman's arrest. However, while Engleman's mailbox was in Arkansas, his actual home was located in Oklahoma. When officers arrested Engelman, he contested their right to execute the warrant in Oklahoma. He claimed police violated his Fourth Amendment rights by carrying out the Arkansas warrant in Oklahoma. The Eighth Circuit agreed. It concluded that under the originalist framework articulated by the Supreme Court in Virginia v. Moore, the Arkansas warrant was invalid in Oklahoma. The Eighth Circuit then went on to conclude the officers had qualified immunity because under the circumstances, the officers could reasonably believe that they were in Arkansas, not Oklahoma, and therefore had authority to carry out the warrant.