“A Look At Gitmo, 10 Years Later”: This audio segment featuring “How Appealing” reader Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

And online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a jurisprudence essay entitled “The Great Gitmo Blackout: The 10th anniversary of Guantanamo Bay and whether we should remember about forgetting.”

“Democratic legislator seeks Gableman’s ouster”: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has a news update that begins, “A Democratic legislator circulated a resolution Wednesday to remove state Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman from office because he ruled on cases involving a law firm that provided him legal services without charging him for them.”

According to the article, “Gableman’s new attorney [is] Viet Dinh of Washington, D.C.”

“Justice Joan Orie Melvin urged to depart in probe”: The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has this news update.

“High court urged to allow jury to decide alienation of affection case”: This article appears today in The Rapid City Journal.

“Supreme Court declines to make it harder to introduce eyewitness testimony at trials”: Robert Barnes will have this article Thursday in The Washington Post.

In Thursday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage will have an article headlined “Supreme Court rejects curbs on eyewitness testimony at trials; In an 8-1 decision, the high court says that judges should not be allowed to consider the reliability of all eyewitness testimony before trials.”

In Thursday’s edition of USA Today, Joan Biskupic will have an article headlined “Judges don’t have to screen witnesses, court rules.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court says no to new rule on eyewitness testimony; The lawyer for a convicted New Hampshire man had asked the Supreme Court to establish an expanded rule to help prevent unreliable eyewitness testimony at criminal trials.”

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court rejects special review of eyewitness testimony.”

And Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court backs eyewitness identification with 8-1 ruling.”

“9th Circuit asks state court to weigh in on Whopper spit suit”: Terry Baynes of Reuters has this report.

And SeattlePI.com reports that “Case of spit in cop’s Whopper headed to state Supreme Court.”

My earlier coverage of today’s Ninth Circuit order appears at this link.

“Voting in Plain Sight”: Linda Greenhouse has this post at the “Opinionator” blog of The New York Times.

“Supreme Court wrestles with medical leave case”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The Supreme Court wrestled Wednesday with how a federal law that grants workers time off for family and medical reasons applies to state government workers in a case that could affect millions of them.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Md., No. 10-1016.

“Several justices seem to support FCC decency rules”: Tony Mauro has this news analysis online at the First Amendment Center.

“See No Evil: Justice Clarence Thomas rehabilitates an eyewitness who may not have seen anything.” Law professor Brandon L. Garrett has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Supreme Court: Churches Can’t Be Sued By Ministers For Employment Discrimination.” Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post has this report.

“Phlegm glob” that Burger King employee with a criminal record placed on Whopper with cheese served to police officer has caused the Ninth Circuit to certify a question of law to the Washington State Supreme Court: You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

The question certified to Washington State’s highest court is: “Does the Washington Product Liability Act permit relief for emotional distress damages, in the absence of physical injury, caused to the direct purchaser by being served and touching, but not consuming, a contaminated food product?”

“U.S. High Court Rejects Limits on Witness-ID Testimony”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion recap: Faith in the jury’s capacity.”

“Justices Grant Leeway to Churches in Job Bias Laws”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Supreme Court: Discrimination laws do not protect certain employees of religious groups.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a blog post titled “Supreme Court: Church-state separation extends to religious schools.”

Joan Biskupic of USA Today has a news update headlined “Court: Certain religious employees can’t sue for job bias.”

James Vicini of Reuters has an article headlined “Supreme Court: ministers can’t sue churches for bias.”

At the “School Law” blog of Education Week, Mark Walsh has a post titled “Supreme Court Backs Church in Teacher-Employment Case.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion recap: A solid ‘ministerial exception.’”

“Md. man’s leave lawsuit lands in Supreme Court”: The Associated Press has this report.

Access online today’s opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued three decisions in argued cases.

1. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court in Perry v. New Hampshire, No. 10-8974. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court in Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid, No. 10-507. Justice Antonin Scalia issued an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, which Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined.,You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, No. 10-553. Justice Thomas issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Alito issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Elena Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press has reports headlined “Court:Judges cannot get involved in church dispute” and “Court rules against man convicted by eyewitness ID.”

“What If Obama Loses? Imagining the consequences of a GOP victory.” That’s the cover story in the January/February 2012 issue of Washington Monthly magazine. Therein, Dahlia Lithwick has an article headlined “The Courts: The conservative takeover will be complete.”

“Is The Obama Admin Trying To Box In Scalia On The Health Care Mandate?” TPMDC has this news analysis.

“Texas can enforce sonogram law, appeals court says”: Chuck Lindell has this article today in The Austin American-Statesman.

And The San Antonio Express-News reports today that “Sonogram statute is unblocked by court; Appellate panel’s decision is cheered by anti-abortion forces.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Fifth Circuit ruling appears here and here.

“Melvin urged to quit Supreme Court”: The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review contains this article today.

“Court upholds injunction against Shariah law ban in Oklahoma courts”: This article appears today in The Tulsa World.

The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Appeals court affirms order blocking Oklahoma sharia law ban; A federal appeals court upholds a 2010 ruling preventing the implementation of an Oklahoma constitutional amendment that would bar judges from considering international or Islamic law in decisions.”

The Denver Post reports that “Oklahoma’s ban on Islamic law blocked by appeals court.”

Terry Baynes of Reuters reports that “Court refuses to unblock Oklahoma ban on Islamic law.”

Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Sharia.”

And yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Court Strikes Down Okla. Sharia Ban.”

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