“They Are So Not Ready for Some Football: The Supreme Court justices prove they know nothing whatsoever about the NFL.” Josh Levin and Dahlia Lithwick have this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

“Court to revisit ruling on Adelphia’s Rigases; Third Circuit to rehear ruling favoring Rigases; Defense says double jeopardy bars new conspiracy charge; John Rigas, Timothy Rigas already in prison”: Reuters has this report on an order granting a limited rehearing en banc that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued today.

My earlier coverage of the three-judge panel’s earlier ruling can be accessed here.

“Oral Argument Heard In Fox Profanity Case”: The so-called “fleeting profanity” case made its return today to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court. C-SPAN’s was there, and you can view today’s oral argument online, on-demand by clicking here. Carter Phillips and Miguel Estrada argued the case today on behalf of the television networks.

At Broadcasting & Cable, you can access a report headlined “FCC, Fox Square Off On Profanity…Again; Second Circuit hears oral arguments, focuses on First Amendment implications of FCC’s indecency regime.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Appeals judges mock ‘fleeting expletives’ policy.”

“High court: No cameras at gay marriage trial.” The Associated Press has this report.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Prop 8 Court TV blocked.”

You can access the Court’s 5-4 ruling, which consists of a per curiam opinion and a dissenting opinion, at this link.

“NY court OKs Internet music sales lawsuit”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.

“All in the Family: The Supreme Court plays nice over international child custody.” Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

“Court seem skeptical of NFL antitrust protection”: The Associated Press has this report.

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “A playoff, of sorts, in store for NFL?”

And at the blog “First One @ One First,” law student Mike Sacks demonstrates that he was once again the first one in the “general public” line to see today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments.

“Judges issue order to cut California prison population”: Denny Walsh has this article today in The Sacramento Bee.

Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “State ordered to cut inmate numbers in 2 years.”

And The Los Angeles Times reports that “Judges OK Schwarzenegger plan to reduce prison crowding; The proposal includes some home detention with satellite tracking devices, permitting some felons to serve time in county jails instead of state prisons and reducing sentences for property crimes.”

“Historian makes the case for same-sex marriage”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle. And Joe Garofoli has an essay entitled “YouTube broadcasts would humanize issue.”

Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reports today that “Proposition 8 trial turns to historians on second day.”

Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Witnesses in Prop. 8 trial examine history of marriage, gays; Professors describe racial bans on marriage and bias against gays; Opponents of same-sex unions accuse scholars of being advocates with views shaped by their opinions.”

And The Sacramento Bee reports that “Historians tell of longtime discrimination against gays at Prop. 8 trial; Defense attorney says nattative is ‘irrelevant.’”

“Top Terror Prosecutor Settles Into a Familiar Role”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

“The fight against full-body scanners at airports: ‘We don’t need to look at naked 8-year-olds and grandmothers to secure airplanes,’ a lawmaker says; The TSA is adding machines to screen more passengers, much to the chagrin of privacy advocates.” David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

Once again, a new day brings no long-awaited campaign finance ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court: But if you were awaiting the Court’s ruling in NRG Power Marketing, LLC v. Maine Pub. Util. Comm’n, No. 08-674 (oral argument transcript available here), you are in luck, as that was the one decision in an argued case announced today.

“Justices to tackle NFL antitrust case; ‘Single-entity’ control at issue”: This article appears today in The Washington Times.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports today that “NFL antitrust case headed to Supreme Court.”

Today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “Contracts Hang In Balance As NFL Case Kicks Off” featuring Nina Totenberg.

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Pro sports and antitrust: Argument Preview.”

Meanwhile, in commentary, The New York Times contains an editorial entitled “Football and Antitrust.”

The Wall Street Journal contains an editorial entitled “An Antitrust Super Bowl: Will the Supreme Court let the NFL behave like a normal business?”

In The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Mark Greenbaum has an op-ed entitled “American Needle v. the NFL will have profound impact.”

And at the web site of Sports Illustrated, Michael McCann has an essay entitled “Why American Needle-NFL is most important case in sports history.”

“Killer Frank Spisak, not his attorney, brought on death penalty, justices rule”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports today that “Execution for Nazi-loving Cleveland murderer can move forward, despite his lawyer’s ‘outrageous’ representation.”

And The Columbus Dispatch reports that “Supreme Court upholds death sentence for neo-Nazi; Lawyer for triple-murderer erred but didn’t change outcome, justices say.”

“Specter now says he’ll support Dawn Johnsen for Office of Legal Counsel”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

And Politico.com reports that “DOJ nominee appears to have 60 votes.”

“Abbott, some scholars disagree on constitutionality of health care plan”: Chuck Lindell had this article yesterday in The Austin American-Statesman.

“Supreme Court Weighs Authority, Not Legality, of Civil Confinements”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Supreme Court debates right to commit sexual predators after prison terms.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court hears arguments on detaining sex offenders; Despite concerns, most justices seem inclined to uphold a federal law permitting authorities to confine ‘sexually dangerous’ people after their prison terms have been completed.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Justices Hear Sex-Offender Case.”

Joan Biskupic of USA Today reports that “Court weighs inmates’ detention past sentences; Convicts seen as ‘sexually dangerous.’”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court justices appear split on US sex offender law; The 2006 law permits the US government to hold convicted sex offenders even after they’ve served their sentences; Hearing arguments Tuesday, the Supreme Court justices sparred over whether Congress has exceeded its authority.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Sex-Offender Commitment Law Gets Support at U.S. Supreme Court.”

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices question sex offender confinement law.”

On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “Court Weighs Indefinite Detention Of Sex Offenders.”

And Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal reports that “High Court Struggles With Child Custody, Sex Offender Cases.”

“Pa. Court Revives Plaintiff Verdict in State’s First Precedential Hormone-Replacement Case; Plaintiffs counsel are viewing the decision as a promising harbinger for the dozens of other HRT cases on appeal”: law.com has now made the article that I linked to here yesterday freely available online at this link.