“High Court Limits Suits by Shareholders”: Carrie Johnson and Robert Barnes will have this article Wednesday in The Washington Post.

And Patti Waldmeir of Financial Times reports that “Court rejects Enron investors’ appeal.”

“Starcher wants probe into Maynard-Blankenship relationship”: The West Virginia Record provides this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “Justice Seeks Probe of Colleague’s Ties to Massey.”

“Appeals court: State must provide transport for inmate abortions.” Bill Mears of CNN.com provides this report.

My earlier coverage of today’s Eighth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Ad Campaign Holds Susan Collins Accountable for Votes to Confirm Bush’s Supreme Court Nominees”: People For the American Way issued this press release today.

“Nichols trial may face new delay; Appeal to state Supreme Court allowed”: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Wednesday will contain an article that begins, “The death penalty trial of Brian Nichols, suspect in the Fulton County Courthouse shootings, was supposed to be back on track, but could face another delay.”

“Muslim inmate loses court case over lost Quran”: Joan Biskupic of USA Today will have this article in Wednesday’s newspaper.

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “Exxon’s Alaska Oil Spill Case Heads to High Court” and “Terrorism Suspect Padilla Sentenced to 17 Years” (RealPlayer required).

“Judge disbands grand jury behind Medina indictment”: The Houston Chronicle provides a news update that begins, “A judge criticized the Harris County District Attorney’s Office today for not standing behind a grand jury’s decision to indict a Texas Supreme Court Justice and his wife in connection the 2007 fire that destroyed the couple’s Spring home.”

The newspaper has also posted online this statement from the District Attorney’s Office.

And The Associated Press reports that “Case of Supreme Court justice’s house fire takes bizarre turn.”

“In Padilla case, no life sentence; The judge cited harsh military detention to justify a lighter term of 17 years in prison”: Warren Richey will have this article Wednesday in The Christian Science Monitor.

“Attorneys probe deepens”: The Hill today contains an article that begins, “The federal investigation into the firing of nine U.S. attorneys could jolt the political landscape ahead of the November elections, according to several people close to the inquiry.”

“Suit against bankers tied to Enron debacle is tossed; In dismissing the appeal by the University of California, nation’s high court appears to have doomed other big cases against former energy trader’s bankers”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.

And The Houston Chronicle provides a news update headlined “Court declines to hear Enron investors’ case.”

“Enron Investors Suing Banks Spurned by Top U.S. Court”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News provides this report.

And James Vicini and Rachelle Younglai of Reuters report that “Supreme Court rejects appeal by Enron investors.”

“Lay Off Linda: Why doesn’t the New York Times stand up for Linda Greenhouse?” Emily Bazelon and Dahlia Lithwick have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

Meanwhile, at National Review Online’s “Bench Memos” blog, Ed Whelan has been cranking out a slew of new posts on the subject.

“Antonin Scalia’s Textualism in Philosophy, Theology, and Judicial Interpretation of the Constitution”: Herman Philipse has posted this article (abstract with links for download) online at SSRN. (Via “Religion Clause.”)

Criminal defendant’s right to a randomly selected replacement for recused federal district judge does not mandate a retrial where the replacement judge, whom the recused judge personally selected, was not biased against the defendant: A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued this ruling today.

En banc Ninth Circuit addresses whether state judge violated clearly established law by requiring a criminal defendant who invoked the right of self-representation to appear through advisory counsel at a chambers conference to discuss how to respond to a query from the deliberating jury: You can access today’s ruling, in favor of the habeas petitioner, at this link. And don’t miss Chief Judge Alex Kozinski‘s snarky concurring opinion, in which he takes to task the six judges (including a former Kozinski law clerk!) who concurred in only part of the majority opinion.

“The constitutionality of the City of Portland’s policy on the use of deadly force by its police officers is squarely presented by this appeal from grant of summary judgment by the decedent’s estate.” So begins the majority opinion that a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today. Even the judge who dissented in part praises the majority opinion for bringing “a degree of clarity to the law of deadly force.”

Law Professor Jonathan Turley has a blog: Perhaps you already knew. If not (and even if so), you can access it here.

“Federal appeals court upholds abortion access for Missouri inmates”: The Kansas City Star provides this news update.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch provides a news update headlined “Court: Mo. must transport inmates for abortions.”

And The Associated Press reports that “MO Must Take Inmates to Abortion Clinics.”

My earlier coverage of today’s Eighth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Padilla gets 17 years, 4 months”: The Miami Herald provides this news update.

The South Florida Sun-Sentinel provides a news update headlined “Convicted terror conspirator Padilla gets 17 years in prison.”

The New York Times provides a news update headlined “Padilla Sentenced to More Than 17 Years in Prison.”

The Washington Post provides a news update headlined “Jose Padilla Sentenced to 17 Years in Prison; Justice Dept. Pushed for Life Sentence for Alleged Dirty Bomb Plotter.”

And the “Southern District of Florida Blog” provides a post titled “Jose Padilla sentenced.”

“Commas, Clauses and Missing Butter at the Supreme Court”: Tony Mauro has this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Jose Padilla Is Sentenced to 17 Years”: The Associated Press provides this report.

On today’s thirty-fifth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a federal appellate court holds unconstitutional the Missouri Department of Corrections’ policy of refusing to allow inmates to obtain elective, non-therapeutic abortions: You can access today’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Roe v. Crawford at this link.

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Court Rules Against Muslim Inmate“; “Court Sides With St. Louis University“; and “Court Rejects Wireless Carriers’ Appeal.”

“Court bars new look at Enron case”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Court Refuses to Hear Enron Case.”

You can access today’s Order List at this link. The Court today also requested the views of the Solicitor General in two cases.

The Court today issued one opinion in an argued case, a 5-4 ruling in favor of the federal respondents in Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 06-9130. You can access the opinion at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link. How the Justices lined-up in deciding this dispute over statutory meaning is unusual. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, in which the Chief Justice and Justices Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the lead dissenting opinion, in which Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, and Stephen G. Breyer joined.

“Misfire at Justice”: The Wall Street Journal today contains an editorial that begins, “The Second Amendment’s right to bear arms has rarely been considered by the Supreme Court, but this year the Court is hearing a case that could become a Constitutional landmark. So it is nothing short of astonishing, and dispiriting, that the Bush Justice Department has now weighed in with an amicus brief that is far too clever by half.”

You can view the amicus brief at this link.

“Maine smokers’ case going before U.S. Supreme Court”: The Bangor Daily News contains this article today.

“Starcher stepped down from ’96 case; Motion cited campaign contributions; high court debate to resume Thursday”: This article appears today in The Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette.

“Justices stick to judging”: Bruce Fein has this op-ed today in The Washington Times.

“Antiabortion cause stirs new generation; Born into a time after Roe vs. Wade, many young adults are eager to reverse it; And veteran activists are happy to enlist their help”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Roe, 35 years later: The landmark abortion ruling is established law; Overturning it would cause severe upheaval.” And Frances Kissling and Kate Michelman have an op-ed entitled “Abortion’s battle of messages: It’s not 1973; Pro-choice forces must adjust to regain the moral high ground.”

“Bradley Details Supreme Court Detainee Jurisprudence”: This article appears in the current issue of The Harvard Law Record.

“Padilla Sentence Due in Terror Case”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“No politics? Evidence to the contrary.” Today in The Houston Chronicle, columnist Lisa Falkenberg has an op-ed that begins, “The dismissal of Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina’s grand jury indictment had everything to do with insufficient evidence and nothing to do with politics. At least that’s what Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal and Medina’s attorney, Terry Yates, would have us believe. And we might have taken their word for it and forgotten all about the peculiar circumstances surrounding the burning of Medina’s Spring home — if not for an outspoken jury foreman and assistant foreman who decided to talk publicly about what they believed was a miscarriage of justice.”

“Another state justice faces ethics allegation; Group scrutinizes Paul Green’s mileage reimbursements from contributions”: This article appears today in The Houston Chronicle.

“New Technologies, New Problems: The Arkansas Supreme Court Rules Against an Inheritance Claim by a Posthumously-Conceived Child.” Joanna Grossman has this essay online today at FindLaw.

My earlier coverage of the ruling appears at this link.