“Death Across the Border Awaits Horses Spared It in the U.S.” This article will appear Friday in The New York Times.

According to the article, “Amid pressure from animal rights groups, horse slaughter virtually ended in the United States last year, as courts upheld state laws banning it in Texas and Illinois, home to the nation’s last three horse slaughterhouses. But there have been unintended consequences, including more grueling travel for tens of thousands of horses now being sent to slaughter in Canada and Mexico, where, animal advocates say, they sometimes face more gruesome deaths.”

Tenth Circuit holds that Utah’s Voluntary Contributions Act, prohibiting any state or local public employer from withholding voluntary political contributions from its employees’ paychecks, violates the First Amendment by restricting those employees’ political speech: You can access today’s Tenth Circuit ruling at this link.

The National Park Service has killed the entire feral pig population on Santa Cruz Island. California, and thus a challenge to use of a lethal method of eradication is moot, Ninth Circuit holds: Dead pigs results in a lack of a live controversy, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled today in an opinion that you can access here.

“Major case over apartheid ‘reparations'”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Despite Probation Violation, Lafave Won’t Go To Prison”: The Tampa Tribune provides a news update that begins, “Circuit Judge J. Rogers Padgett determined that Debra Lafave did violate her house arrest by having private conversations with a 17-year-old co-worker at a Sun City Center restaurant. He also determined, however, that the violation was neither willful nor substantial, therefore she will continue house arrest under the current conditions.”

The blog of The St. Petersburg Times has a post titled “Judge lets Lafave stay on house arrest.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Judge Won’t Punish Teacher in Sex Case.”

“Ginsburg Talks About Jewish Heritage”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Thursday that the change in U.S. acceptance of Jews can be seen on the Supreme Court, where two members are Jewish yet their faith played no role in their selection.”

Two Hammond, Indiana police officers stopped Earkle Tyler to ask him “why he was being so nonchalant about walking on the street with a beer bottle”: Unbeknownst to the police officers, it is not illegal to have an open alcoholic beverage on the streets of Hammond, justifying a high degree of nonchalance.

The cops then asked Tyler for his ID and had radio dispatch run a check for warrants, which came back clear. Only then, after informing Tyler that he was free to leave, did the police notice the bulge in Tyler’s pants that turned out to be a purple Crown Royal sack containing about 30.3 grams of crack and 24 grams of powder cocaine.

Today, in an opinion you can access here, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to make the initial stop of Tyler and thus the package of powder and crack cocaine discovered as a result of that illegal stop had to be suppressed. Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes wrote the opinion of the court.

“Justices Appear Divided Over Indiana Voter ID Law”: This segment (transcript with links to audio and video) featuring Marcia Coyle appeared on yesterday evening’s broadcast of the PBS program “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.”

In addition, C-SPAN provides online access to a segment (RealPlayer required) that aired on this morning’s broadcast of “Washington Journal” featuring both Paul Smith and Tom Fisher, the attorneys who argued for the opposing parties yesterday in the U.S. Supreme Court. And you can view the appearances before the microphones on the steps of the Court immediately following yesterday’s argument by clicking here (RealPlayer required).

“CIA-Tapes Prosecutor Known for FBI-Mob Ties Case”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“Blame for 1993 Attack at Center Is Still at Issue”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an article that begins, “One of the most painful parts has been the wait, a lawyer for victims of the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center told an appeals court on Wednesday.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Lawyers Debate Blame Over ’93 WTC Attack.”

“Padilla, co-defendants seek leniency; They were terrorist bit players at most, their lawyers argue; Prosecutors say they deserve life sentences”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

“Friday is deadline for ailing smokers to sue Big Tobacco”: This article appears today in The South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

According to the article, “Courtrooms across the state are poised to become battlegrounds for the latest incarnation of tobacco cases that must be filed by Friday for ill smokers to capitalize on a Florida Supreme Court ruling.”

“Split court could uphold Indiana’s voter ID law”: Joan Biskupic has this article today in USA Today.

The Indianapolis Star reports today that “Justices seem hesitant to toss Indiana’s voter ID law; Some on high court appear to search for middle ground on law that is toughest in nation.”

The Louisville Courier-Journal reports that “Queries hint at court split on voter ID; Justices expected to rule on Indiana case by June.”

And The Washington Times reports that “Court questions voter-ID critics.”

“If he wanted, Bush could fill court vacancies”: Law Professor Carl Tobias has this op-ed today in The Roanoke Times.

I expressed a similar thought nearly one year ago. The February 5, 2007 installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com was headlined “For Federal Appellate Judicial Nominations, It’s a Time for Pragmatism.”

“Blog Takes Failed Marriage Into Fight Over Free Speech”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an article that begins, “Normally, Garrido v. Krasnansky, a divorce case playing out in Vermont family court, would be of little interest to anyone but the couple involved. But the court has ordered the husband to stop posting blog items about his wife and their crumbled marriage, possibly turning an ordinary divorce into a much broader battle over free speech on the Internet.”

“Yale and the Terrorist”: The Wall Street Journal today contains an editorial that begins, “John Yoo can be forgiven if he’s having second thoughts about his career choice. A Yale Law School graduate, the Berkeley professor of law went on to serve his country at the Justice Department. Yet last week he was sued by convicted terrorist Jose Padilla and his mother, who are represented by none other than lawyers at Yale. Perhaps if Mr. Yoo had decided to pursue a life of terrorism, he too could be represented by his alma mater.”

“Council Bill Could Protect Authors”: Today in The New York Sun, Joseph Goldstein has an article that begins, “A bill introduced this week in Albany would give new protection to New York authors and journalists against libel judgments from foreign courts and would make it easier for writers to use New York courts to challenge foreign judgments against them.”

“Judge under investigation to hold court to Galveston”: The Houston Chronicle today contains an article that begins, “Federal judge Samuel Kent, who returned to work last week after a four-month paid leave of absence and under the shroud of a federal criminal probe, is making his first courtroom appearance on Thursday, but in the same Galveston building where a court employee accused him of sexual assault. Kent resumed his duties last week at the Houston federal courthouse, a reassignment ordered in the fall amid allegations that the longtime Galveston judge inappropriately touched a female employee. The Department of Justice is investigating the complaint filed by Cathy McBroom. Kent, who agreed not to ‘handle any civil or criminal cases in which the United States is a party or in which sexual misconduct of any kind is alleged’ scheduled two of Thursday’s hearings on Monday. His orders stated that the lawyers in each case should note the location of the hearing and that late-comers would be sanctioned by the court.”

And The Galveston County Daily News reports today that “Kent gets new case manager — a male.”

“Wales case witness’s appeal heard”: The Seattle Times today contains an article that begins, “Judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held a closed hearing Wednesday in connection with an appeal by a witness in the grand-jury investigation into the 2001 shooting death of federal prosecutor Thomas Wales. Joseph Conte, the Washington, D.C., lawyer for the witness — Bellevue gun dealer Albert Kwok Leung Kwan — said the topic of the hearing was his appeal over the FBI’s seizure of Kwan’s personal papers in connection with the Wales investigation. The hearing was closed and all of the lawyers’ briefs sealed. Clerks could not even say whether it was Kwan or the government who had sought the appeal.”

“Court upholds conscientious objector’s status”: The Boston Globe today contains an article that begins, “A federal appeals court ruled yesterday in favor of an anesthesiologist who asked to be discharged from the US Army as a conscientious objector after the military paid $184,000 for her to attend Tufts University School of Medicine. In a 2-to-1 vote, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a judge who in October 2006 halted the Army’s effort to force Dr. Mary Hanna, 31, of Somerville, to report for active duty, ruling that an Army review board’s denial of her request for conscientious objector status ‘was without a basis in fact.'”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s First Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Seattle Center limits on street performers OK’d; But critics call the appeals court ruling a blow to free speech”: The Seattle Post-Intelligencer today contains an article that begins, “Michael Berger — aka Magic Mike — whose balloon animals and sleight-of-hand tricks have been a Seattle fixture for almost three decades, can be regulated and even banished by Seattle Center, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday. The 2-1 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Seattle Center rules aimed at addressing territorial disputes between street performers and complaints about performers making too much noise, blocking access or aggressively seeking donations. Berger, the dissenting judge and the American Civil Liberties Union called the ruling a blow to freedom of speech.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Ninth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro reports that “Breyer Just Missed Record as Junior Justice.”

An article reports that “9th Circuit’s Stay Lets S.F. Force Bosses to Fund Health Care; The overturning of a San Francisco federal judge is good news for City Hall, and bad news for employers.”

In news from Pennsylvania, Amaris Elliott-Engel reports that “Court Reissues Opinion in Case Involving Seizure of Porn Defendant’s Computer From Circuit City.”

And Mark Herrmann, co-author of the “Drug and Device Law” blog, has an essay entitled “Blogging Lessons Learned.”