“Terror conspirator Padilla appeals conviction”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Court TV and judicial powers”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Justices hear case on releasing sex offenders”: The Associated Press has this report.

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a related post titled “SG Kagan Gives Scalia a Promotion, Briefly.”

“Justices step directly into cameras-in-court debate”: Tony Mauro has this analysis online at the First Amendment Center.

“I can appreciate the majority’s attempt to avoid criticism of a sister court, but the sheer mushy applesauce consistency of the majority opinion in avoiding a jurisdictional confrontation with the D.C. Circuit should be obvious.” In an en banc ruling issued today, the majority on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit avoids a jurisdictional rumble with the D.C. Circuit. The quote that serves as this post’s title comes from the conclusion of an opinion dissenting from today’s outcome.

As for who would win such a street fight, it’s a difficult call. The D.C. Circuit, having correctly recognized the rights the Second Amendment confers, would no doubt appear fully armed to the teeth. But the Federal Circuit might have even more ingenious devices at hand.

No long-awaited campaign finance ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court today: But if you were awaiting the Court’s ruling in Smith v. Spisak, No. 08-724 (oral argument transcript available here), you are in luck, as that was the one decision in an argued case announced today. The Court is schuled to issue one or more additional opinions in argued cases tomorrow at 10 a.m. eastern time.

Update: In news coverage of the ruling, The Associated Press reports that “Court reinstates death sentence for Ohio neo-Nazi.”

“Plaintiff says Prop. 8 ‘means I’m unequal'”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle. The newspaper also reports that “High court pulls plug on YouTube trial coverage.”

Today in The Los Angeles Times, Maura Dolan has an article headlined “Tearful testimony on discrimination at Prop. 8 trial; The first day of the landmark case includes opening statements on the nature of marriage, a history of the institution and the struggles two same-sex couples have endured because they can’t marry.” In addition, David G. Savage and Carol J. Williams report that “Prop. 8 trial video barred — for now; The Supreme Court’s order, which expires Wednesday, apparently reflects the justices’ concerns that the coverage could bring harm to witnesses.”

Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “Historic Prop 8 trial opens with emotional testimony from gay couples.”

The Sacramento Bee reports that “Couples tell of toll from state gay marriage ban as Prop. 8 trial begins.”

The New York Times contains an article headlined “Personal Focus as Same-Sex-Marriage Trial Opens in California.” And Adam Liptak reports that “Justices to Review Plan for Webcasts of a Trial.”

USA Today reports that “Prop 8 trial gets underway offline; High court says no posts on YouTube.”

The Wall Street Journal contains an article headlined “New Battle on California Ban; Federal Trial Opens Challenging Law Against Gay Marriage; Supreme Court Weighs In.”

The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Gay marriage trial begins with tough questions for both sides; Opening arguments began Monday in what could be a landmark trial for gay marriage; The case, which challenges California’s ban on same-sex marriage, Proposition 8, could go to the US Supreme Court.”

And Dan Levine of The Recorder, who is covering the trial live via his Twitter account, reports that “Gay Couples Testify as Marriage Case Starts.”

“Panel Revives Plaintiff Verdict in State’s First Precedential HRT Case”: Amaris Elliott-Engel has this article, in which I am quoted, in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.

This is a case in which I have served, and continue to serve, as appellate counsel for the plaintiff. My earlier posts linking to the appellate court’s ruling and the plaintiff’s appellate briefs can be accessed here and here.

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor is reporting: He has articles headlined “Supreme Court refuses challenge to school dress code; The Supreme Court Monday declined to take up a student’s challenge to a Texas school dress code; An appeals court ruling said the policy, which bars non-school-related messages on clothing, did not violate student free-speech rights”

and

“Supreme Court rejects appeal in child pornography case; The Supreme Court Monday rejected an appeal to overturn a conviction for producing child pornography; The defendant argued that the images — of children’s faces morphed on adults — did not involve sexual activity by minors and so were protected by the First Amendment.”

“Prosecutors oppose ‘imperfect self-defense’ for Roeder”: The Wichita Eagle contains this article today, along with an article headlined “Tiller’s wife opposes subpoena.”

The Kansas City Star reports today that “Roeder trial delayed as judge’s decision debated.”

The New York Times contains an article headlined “Delay in Trial for Abortion Doctor Killing.”

And The Christian Science Monitor contains an article headlined “‘Necessity’ defense: Did abortion doctor need to die? Scott Roeder insists he was justified in killing an abortion doctor because it prevented more abortions; His lawyers argue they should be allowed to use the so-called necessity defense; Jury selection is expected to take place this week.”

“Judicial Security”: This editorial appears today in The New York Times.

Today’s edition of The Las Vegas Sun contains articles headlined “Slain court officer remembered for service to Las Vegas” and “Nevada funerals subject to protest; Despite assemblyman’s efforts, state has no version of ‘Respect’ law.”

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that “Service celebrates life; Friends focus on how Stan Cooper lived, not died.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Slain ‘hero’ Vegas federal court guard eulogized.”

“Supreme Court looks at constitutionality of sex offender law; The Supreme Court Tuesday considers a law that allows the federal government to detain offenders it considers ‘sexually dangerous,’ even after completion of their sentences; Critics say the sex offender law intrudes on states’ authority”: Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

Bill Mears of CNN.com has an article headlined “Can sex offenders be held after serving criminal sentences?”

And today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “Federal Prisoners Kept Beyond Their Sentences” featuring Nina Totenberg.

“Supreme Court revisits ruling on challenges to forensic reports”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post, along with an item headlined “Supreme Court Justices, law professor play with words.”

And Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal reports that “High Court Justices Grill Both Sides in Confrontation Clause Case.”