“Protesters See Mood Shift Against ‘Roe’; Court Nominees, Young Activists Cited at Annual Antiabortion March”: This article will appear Tuesday in The Washington Post.

“Court Opens Campaign Law to Challenges”: Linda Greenhouse will have this article Tuesday in The New York Times.

And Tuesday in The Washington Post, Charles Lane will report that “Campaign Finance Law May Have A Loophole; Some Issue Ads Could Be Exempt, Justices Say.”

Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro has articles headlined “High Court Remands to Lower Court on Campaign Reform Law” and “No Sentimental Send-Off for O’Connor — Yet.”

Meanwhile, in other news, “Sentencing Speeches Upheld by 9th Circuit.”

Tonight’s DVD selection: “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room,” reviewed here by A.O. Scott of The New York Times. Still plenty of time to view the film before a certain criminal trial gets underway next week in Houston.

“RIM hit by BlackBerry patent setback”: Financial Times provides this news update.

Making a federal case of it: The San Francisco Chronicle today contains an article headlined “Going for broke in battle over gay vows; Many activist groups fear federal case could undermine their state-by-state strategy.”

“In re: ‘Those “Happy Homos.”‘” The blog “Underneath Their Robes” features this new post.

“RIM’s Supreme Setback”: Dan Frommer has this report at Forbes.com.

“Poll: Alito should sit on high court; Supreme Court nominee expected to win panel support Tuesday.” CNN.com provides this report.

And Voice of America News reports that “US Senate Panel Expected to Approve Supreme Court Nominee.” Tomorrow’s business meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to start at 9:30 a.m., and C-SPAN plans to televise it live.

“Activists take campaign to top judge’s elegant domain”: The Guardian (UK) today contains an article that begins, “Justice David Souter has a very nice home. A pretty 200-year-old wooden farmhouse, it is set in eight acres (three hectares) of land in the small town of Weare, New Hampshire.”

And BBC News provides a report headlined “Campaign to seize US judge’s home; Activists angered by a US Supreme Court ruling that homes can be demolished for public developments are trying to seize the home of one of the judges involved.”

Airport first, sainthood second: The Associated Press reports that “Episcopalians Seek Sainthood for Marshall.”

“Supreme Defeat for ‘Two Buck Chuck’ Maker”: The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.

“Keeping Secrets: A simple prescription for keeping Google’s records out of government hands.” Law Professor Tim Wu has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“O’Connor Breaks Tie in Possible Last Vote”: Gina Holland of The Associated Press provides this report.

U.S. Supreme Court issues appellate waiver ruling: The decision was easy to overlook given the understandable focus on today’s election law and state sovereign immunity rulings, but in addition to deciding those sexy cases the Court today held 7-2 that a defendant should not expect to obtain a new trial on appeal due to insufficiency of the evidence in a civil case in the absence of an appropriate post-judgment motion even if the sufficiency of the evidence had been challenged during the trial. You can access today’s appellate waiver ruling at this link.

“Justice O’Connor’s Closing Statement: More from a Supreme mess.” Susan E. Wills has this essay today at National Review Online.

“We consider whether possession of an assault weapon in violation of California Penal Code section 12280(b) is a ‘crime of violence’ under the federal Sentencing Guidelines.” And the answer is “no” according to an opinion that Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski issued today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In the opinion, the reigning male judicial superhottie writes, “So long as the item in question has substantial legitimate uses, its mere possession cannot, without more, constitute a crime of violence.”

“High Court Remands to Lower Court on Campaign Reform Law”: law.com’s Tony Mauro provides this news update.

“Salad not appealing — now woman’s appealing fine”: This article appears today in The Express-Times of Easton, Pennsylvania.

The Allentown Morning Call reported last Thursday that “Palmer Township woman’s tossed salad is costing her some green; She’s fighting littering citation; Officer says she got off easy.”

And in related coverage, The Associated Press offers an article headlined “Woman Cited in Pa. for Flinging Lettuce” that begins, “A woman fined $173.50 for throwing salad greens out of her car says, lettuce not be too quick to judge her.”

“Alito Poised to Win Senate Panel Approval”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press provides this report.

“Blawg Review #41”: Here, at “Jonathan B. Wilson.”

“Setback for BlackBerry maker; High court rejects Research in Motion petition to review ruling that could shut e-mail service”: CNNMoney.com provides this report.

The “Election Law” blog on today’s U.S. Supreme Court election law developments: Law Professor Rick Hasen provides this post.

“A note from the editor”: Lincoln Caplan, editor and president of Legal Affairs magazine, issued this statement today containing some sad news about the publication that this blog has had the pleasure and privilege of being affiliated with since April 2004.

In related coverage, The Chicago Tribune reports today that “Demise of Legal Affairs proves there’s no justice.”

“How Appealing” is scheduled to remain right here until April 20, 2006, at which point (as detailed in this press release) new posts will appear at this blog’s to-be-announced new location at the law.com web site.

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court opinions and Order List: The Court today issued three opinions in argued cases and a decree in an original proceeding.

1. In Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm’n, No. 04-1581, a case that was just argued last week, the Court today issued a per curiam opinion (that reads like Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s handiwork) remanding the case for a ruling on the merits of plaintiff’s challenge. Because the oral argument occurred so recently, the transcript is not yet available via the Court’s web site.

2. In Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., No. 04-597, Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. You can access the syllabus here; Justice Thomas’s opinion here; Justice John Paul Stevens’ dissenting opinion, in which Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joined, here; and the oral argument transcript here.

3. In Central Va. Community College v. Katz, No. 04-885, Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court, which divided by a 5-4 margin with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor as the crucial swing vote. You can access the syllabus here; Justice Stevens’ opinion here; Justice Thomas’s dissenting opinion, in which the Chief Justice and Justices Antonin Scalia and Kennedy joined, here; and the oral argument transcript here.

Today’s decree in the original proceeding captioned Alaska v. United States, No. 128, Orig., can be accessed here.

Today’s Order List can be accessed here. The Court granted review in no new cases today.

Gina Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court Sidesteps Campaign Finance.” And in other coverage from The AP, “High Court Won’t Hear BlackBerry Appeal” and “Court Won’t Hear Judicial Elections Case.”

Reuters provides reports headlined “Supreme Court: states can be sued under bankruptcy law” and “US high court declines to review RIM patent ruling.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court allows campaign finance challenges.”

“In Nazi Memorabilia Fight, Yahoo Can’t Win for Losing”: Today’s installment of my weekly appellate column for law.com is available here.

“Bush nominee broke law; A federal judge nominated to the U.S. Circuit Court owned stock in corporations involved in lawsuits brought before him”: Will Evans has this article today at Salon.com.

“Alito’s Vote Hinges on Senators in N.J. and Pennsylvania”: The New York Sun contains this article today.

The Daily Princetonian reports today that “Alito ’72 faces committee vote; University poised to have first alumnus on high court in half century.”

The Stanford Daily reports that “Democrats stall Alito’s appointment.”

And The Midland (Tex.) Reporter-Telegram reports that “Cornyn reflects on Alito hearings.”

In commentary, The New York Times contains an editorial entitled “Judge Alito’s Radical Views.”

The Muskogee (Okla.) Phoenix contains an editorial entitled “Confirm Judge Alito.”

The Free Lance-Star of Fredericksburg, Virginia contains an editorial entitled “Confirm Judge Alito.”

In USA Today, Law Professor Richard W. Garnett has an op-ed entitled “Two justices who ‘get’ religion; To hear Samuel Alito’s critics, you’d think he and retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor are as different as night and day; Not so; In fact, when it comes to religious freedom and the Constitution, they read from the same script.”

In The Philadelphia Inquirer, Harold Jackson has an op-ed entitled “Alito’s spin at hearings shows he can’t be trusted.”

In The Palm Beach Post, Tom Blackburn has an op-ed entitled “Keep court behind the curtain.”

In The Daily Texan, Elliott Ash and Ryan Ash have an op-ed entitled “Confirmation process flawed.”

In The Columbia Chronicle, Derek Strum has an op-ed entitled “Alito’s qualified and confirmed–deal with it.”

And online at OpinionJournal, Dan Gerstein has an essay entitled “Base Dogma: Left-wing bloggers observe the Alito hearings from an alternative universe.”

“Push in Nebraska highlights new abortion dynamic; Opponents flex growing influence”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.

“Once feds rest, will Ryan take the stand? After being tarred by prosecution for months, ex-governor faces pivotal decision.” The Chicago Tribune contains this article today.

“Attorney’s Perseverance Yields a Legal Masterpiece; Randol Schoenberg spent 7 1/2 years pursuing Austria’s return of art looted by the Nazis”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Gay Couple Loses Lawsuit Over Advertisement Photo”: Josh Gerstein has this article (pass-through link) today in The New York Sun. Friday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia can be accessed here.

“Politics Alleged In Voting Cases; Justice Officials Are Accused of Influence”: This front page article appears today in The Washington Post.