“Life in prison for Padilla? In sentencing, the judge must find that the convicted Al Qaeda recruit aimed to influence a government; But his trial has scant record of motive.” Warren Richey will have this article Tuesday in The Christian Science Monitor.

“Supreme Court spanks lawyer for TV’s ‘Judge Alex'”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers provides this report.

“Motion Ties W. Virginia Justice to Coal Executive”: Tuesday in The New York Times, Adam Liptak will have an article that begins, “A justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court and a powerful coal-company executive met in Monte Carlo in the summer of 2006, sharing several meals even as the executive’s companies were appealing a $50 million jury verdict against them to the court. A little more than a year later, the justice, Elliott E. Maynard, voted with the majority in a 3-to-2 decision in favor of the coal companies.”

The West Virginia Record reports this evening that “Maynard’s relationship with Blankenship questioned again, this time with photos.”

And last Thursday’s edition of The Charleston Gazette reported that “High court may review petition against Massey.”

“Supreme Court Justice Scalia to visit MSU”: The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi today contains an article that begins, “U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia will speak at Mississippi State University Jan. 24.” According to the article, “A press release announcing the event said Scalia will enforce a media policy similar to the one that pushed him and the U.S. Marshal’s service into the critical eye of the national media in 2004.”

And the University of Central Missouri today issued a news release headlined “Tickets Available for Lecture by Justice Antonin Scalia.”

“Oral history: The Monica Lewinsky scandal ten years on; Ten years after a young intern nearly brought down a president, the players in the Monica Lewinsky scandal talk to our correspondent.” This article appears Tuesday in The Times of London.

“Man sentenced to 15 months in prison for Trolley Square gun sale”: Pamela Manson of The Salt Lake Tribune provides this news update.

“Former Federal Judge Joins Notorious Conspiracy”: At “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has a post that begins, “I’m delighted to report that the judiciary’s loss is our gain: Prof. Paul Cassell will be joining us a coblogger.”

“Reshuffle for top lawyers when supreme court opens”: The Times of London today contains an article that begins, “Britain’s most senior judge is being tipped to take over as head of the first supreme court in what will trigger a major reshuffle of top judicial posts.”

“Asahi Loses U.S. Supreme Court Bid to Revive $25 Million Award”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News provides this report.

“The way to size up a Supreme nominee”: Bob Braun, columnist for The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger, had this essay last week.

“The search for a ‘humane’ execution”: BBC News provides this report.

And yesterday in The Arizona Republic, former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods had an op-ed entitled “Reflections on death in gas chamber.”

“Portsmouth case to test limits in police searches”: The Virginian-Pilot today contains an article that begins, “A seemingly routine traffic stop in Portsmouth five years ago has morphed into a major constitutional confrontation to be played out today in the nation’s highest court . The case of David Lee Moore began with an offense so mundane that state law instructs police to hold most suspects only long enough to write a ticket. It could end with new limits on police tactics in pursuing more serious crimes or a redefinition of the Constitution’s protection against ‘unreasonable’ searches.”

“Wal-Mart, Worker Cancel High Court Clash, Settle Case”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News provides this report.

And Dow Jones Newswires report that “US Supreme Court Dismisses Disability Suit Against Wal-Mart.”

“Three Texas killers lose U.S. Supreme Court appeals”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Lawyer defends his monthly $14K child payments”: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution provides a news update that begins, “Renowned trial lawyer Willie Gary had a very personal case before the Georgia Supreme Court Monday.”

“Supreme Court Declines to Hear Experimental Drug Case; Petitioners Argue Terminally Ill Should Have Right to Drugs Not Yet Approved by FDA”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post provides this news update.

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “U.S. court rejects appeal seeking unapproved drugs.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Expand Experimental-Drug Access.”

And Agence France-Presse provides a report headlined “No right to experimental drugs for dying patients: Supreme Court.”

“At the Supreme Court, the Seventh Time is Not a Charm”: At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post that begins, “Seven may be Eric Brunstad Jr.’s unlucky number.”

“Supreme Court dismisses appeal in test drugs case; Justices let stand a ruling that the terminally ill have no constitutional right to unapproved drugs”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.

“Justices Skeptical of TV Judge’s Claims”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A majority of the Supreme Court’s justices appeared to side against a daytime television judge Monday in a contract dispute.”

You can access a transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Preston v. Ferrer, No. 06-1463, at this link.

“Virtual representation,” privity, and due process: When may a defendant invoke a jury’s ruling in the defendant’s favor against one plaintiff to prevent another plaintiff, who claim was not before that first jury for resolution, from taking a similar claim arising from the same transaction or occurrence before a second jury for resolution?

On Friday of last week, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in the case of Taylor v. Sturgell, No. 07-371, which presents that question in the context of similar successive claims against the federal government. You can access the D.C. Circuit‘s decision in that case at this link, while “SCOTUSblog” has posted online the cert. petition, the briefs in opposition (here and here), and petitioner’s reply.

When the Supreme Court on Friday conferenced, and decided to grant review in, the Taylor case, the Court also conferenced Eddy v. Waffle House, Inc., No. 07-495, a case between private parties that raises an issue quite similar to the one raised in Taylor. It appears that the Court is holding Eddy pending its resolution of Taylor.

I wrote about the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Eddy in the April 16, 2007 installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com, headlined “The N-Word and a Plaintiff’s Right to His Day in Court.” I have obtained the cert. papers filed in the Eddy case, and you can access them at the following links: cert. petition; brief in opposition; and plaintiffs’ reply.

Coincidentally, just last Thursday, one day before the Supreme Court granted review in Taylor, I filed this Brief for Appellants in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a case raising many of these same due process issues.

Access online the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Virginia v. Moore, No. 06-1082: The Court has posted the transcript at this link.

“Justices Weigh Ex-Con’s Drug Case”: Pete Yost of The Associated Press provides this report.

“If a 42-year-old man wants to change his identity and fly through the remainder of his life under the radar screen with a fake name, what kind of name would he be likely to select?” So begins an opinion that Circuit Judge Terence T. Evans issued today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

As the opinion recounts, the man changed his last name to “Ducks,” but at least he had the common-sense to also change his first name, which had been “Donald.”

“Suspect Seminars”: Today in The Daily Journal of California, Timothy J. Dowling of Community Rights Counsel has an op-ed that begins, “Would football fans be upset if NFL referees attended seminars on the rules of football at Hilton Head Island or other posh resorts, with the travel expenses paid for by the New England Patriots? Everyone (except Patriots fans) would view the arrangement as a threat to the integrity of the game. Even if the seminars were unbiased, the appearance of impropriety would be overwhelming. Why, then, do we allow federal judges to attend legal seminars at tony resorts, with the travel expenses paid for by nonprofit groups funded by large corporations or private foundations that also fund litigation campaigns?”

“TV’s Judge Alex Goes to the Supreme Court”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment (RealPlayer required) on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

This post of mine from earlier today collects additional coverage.

“Court seeks advice on settling worker claims”: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post that begins, “The Supreme Court on Monday asked the U.S. Solicitor General for the government’s view on whether workers may settle with their employers their claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act.”

And in other news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court Declines Experimental Drugs Case” and “Court Declines Pollution Case.”

You can access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

“Don’t Raise Too Many Issues on Appeal in Bad Faith”: Email troubles that plagued law.com’s San Francisco office on Friday prevented this week’s installment of my “On Appeal” column from appearing today.

Coincidentally, on the second Monday of each month (which for this month just happens to be today), The Legal Intelligencer — Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers — publishes my “Upon Further Review” column. Today’s installment of that column is headlined “Don’t Raise Too Many Issues on Appeal in Bad Faith.” It focuses on a recent ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that I linked to in this earlier post.

“Joint Chiefs Chairman: Close Guantanamo.” The Associated Press provides this report.

“Wesley Snipes to Go on Trial in Tax Case”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

And The Associated Press reports that “Wesley Snipes Tax Trial to Begin in Fla.”

“On Today’s Docket: ‘Judge Alex’ Does The Supreme Court; TV Justice’s Case Is Heard In Camera-Shy Chamber; ‘Rather Watch Paint Dry.'” Today in The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin has an article that begins, “If you want to watch ‘Judge Alex,’ a television show where a former judge settles small-time squabbles for the amusement of daytime viewers, check your local listings. If you want to see Judge Alex himself — today, anyway — come to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

And today in The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that “High court to hear TV judge’s case; Alex Ferrer says he should not have to abide by a contract. At issue is the legality of binding arbitration.”

The “Judge Alex” in question is not this one, who once referred to himself as “a member of OOPPSSCA, the Organization of People Patiently Seeking Supreme Court Appointments.” Rather, he’s this one. No word yet on whether this “Judge Alex” likewise considers blogs to be “hateful things.”

“Cuomo Stands Alone on 2nd Amendment”: Today in The New York Sun, Joseph Goldstein has an article that begins, “In arguing that the Second Amendment case now before the Supreme Court shouldn’t have any bearing on state gun control laws, Attorney General Cuomo is finding himself largely alone among state attorneys general.” Via “SCOTUSblog,” you can access New York State’s amicus brief at this link.

And today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Key district attorneys urge Supreme Court to uphold handgun ban.” Via “SCOTUSblog,” you can access the amicus brief in question at this link.

“Jose Padilla’s Suit Against John Yoo: An Interesting Idea, But Will It Get Far?” Elaine Cassel has this essay online today at FindLaw.