“Supreme Court to hear Monsanto appeal”: This article appears today in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
“Tobacco Companies Said to Have Met With U.S. on Suit”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has a report that begins, “Tobacco company lawyers met with U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan last month to urge her not to file a Supreme Court appeal in the government’s racketeering case against the industry, an official involved in the Justice Department’s deliberations about the case said.”
Update: Pete Yost of The Associated Press has a report headlined “Tobacco’s plea — no big US payments.”
“YooTube: Why Jon Stewart failed to make John Yoo squirm.” Christopher Beam has this essay online at Slate.
“Public Enemies: How the Supreme Court managed to insult both the law and the public.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.
“D.C. Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss in Wone Case”: Mike Scarcella has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”
“Court to Rule on Right to Privacy for Referendum Petition Signers”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.
In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Justices to hear case on disclosure of names on a petition.”
Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “You sign a petition to curb gay rights. Should your name be public? The US Supreme Court has decided to hear a case about releasing to the public the names of people who signed a petition; The petition in question called for repealing Washington State’s law granting partnership rights to gay couples.”
The Seattle Times reports that “U.S. Supreme Court accepts Ref. 71 case; The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear the case surrounding the public release of names of voters who signed petitions for Referendum 71.”
SeattlePI.com reports that “U.S. Supreme Court will take R-71 case; Issue is disclosure of signatures in gay rights debate.”
And Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal reports that “Supreme Court Takes Up Case on Petition-Signer Privacy.”
“Something’s Fishy at the High Court”: Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal has this report.
And last Sunday’s edition of The Chicago Tribune contained an article headlined “Asian carp: Take that carp and fry it; River invader is more tasty morsel than maligned in some quarters.”
