“Diagramming Sentences: The Supreme Court’s war on sentencing guidelines.” Emily Bazelon has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

SOTU Justices: In attendance at tonight’s State of the Union Address were Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Associate Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer, and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. Reuters provides this photo.

“Ex-dictator Noriega to be released Sept. 9”: El Nuevo Herald provides a report that begins, “It’s official and final: Former Panamanian dictator Manuel Antonio Noriega, held in Miami-Dade on charges of drug trafficking and money laundering, will be released from prison on Sept. 9 after completing his sentence. The news was revealed to El Nuevo Herald by Noriega’s attorney, Frank Rubino. The release order appears on the official Web page of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons.”

“Libby Defense Portrays Client as a Scapegoat”: Neil A. Lewis will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.

The Washington Post on Wednesday will contain a front page article headlined “Defense Portrays Libby as Scapegoat; Jury Is Told About White House Rifts.”

The Associated Press reports that “Lawyers Paint Libby As Sacrificial Lamb.”

And law.com reports that “Prosecution Calls Libby a Liar During Opening Arguments.”

“Padilla lawyers blasted for wiretap leak”: This article appears today in The Miami Herald.

“Garrow’s gushing review”: At the “LawBeat” blog, Mark Obbie has an interesting post today in which he writes that “if Garrow’s take on [ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg’s new book] is true and the scoops hold up, I predict the opposite effect: emboldening the Supreme Court beat reporters to reach out more to the justices, and possibly reinvigorating a beat in the eyes of media bosses who’ve gradually cut it back to a nub.”

“Libby Jury Hears Two Sides of CIA Leak Case”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered.”

Available online from SSRN: Robert Justin Lipkin has an article titled “Which Constitution? Who Decides?” (abstract with link for download). According to the abstract, the article “recommends instituting a congressional override to reverse Supreme Court decisions when the electorate, through their representatives in Congress, regards those decisions to be unconstitutional.”

And Seth Barrett Tillman has an essay titled “Senate Termination of Presidential Recess Appointments” (abstract with links for download) in which he argues that “as a simple straight forward textual matter the Senate majority can terminate a presidential recess appointment by terminating their session, i.e., the session that meets following a presidential intersession recess appointment.”

Thanks to “Legal Theory Blog” for the pointers (here and here).

“Carter’s judicial selection process a hot topic at event; Ohio academic says former president’s confirmation tactics helped to shape the current system–for better and for worse”: This article (free access) appears today in The Fulton County Daily Report.

“Supreme Court Strikes Down California Sentencing Rules”: This segment (transcript with links to audio and video) featuring Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal appeared on yesterday’s broadcast of the PBS program “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.”

“11th Amendment Immunity Waived by Requesting an Interference Proceeding”: “Patently-O: Patent Law Blog” provides this post. And my earlier coverage appears here.

“Rehnquist’s Stay on Court Forced O’Connor Out; Death Created Double Vacancy Chief Justice Feared”: Jan Crawford Greenburg has this written report online at ABCNews.com.

“Chinese Parents Win OK to Reclaim Girl”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The Tennessee Supreme Court cleared the way Tuesday for a Chinese couple to be reunited with the daughter they had placed in foster care with an American family nearly eight years ago.”

And The Commercial Appeal of Memphis provides a news update headlined “Court orders Anna Mae He returned to parents.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Tennessee at this link.

Have meth pipe, won’t travel: The briefs that led the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to grant rehearing en banc yesterday in United States v. Aukai can now be accessed at this link. My earlier coverage can be accessed via this link. And yes, the title of this post is based on the title of a bad Three Stooges movie.

“Court upholds copyright law on ‘orphan works'”: Reuters provides this report.

And Law Professor Chris Sprigman, at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society blog, has a post titled “9th Circuit rejects constitutional challenge to copyright laws in Kahle v. Gonzales.”

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“Christian activists vow to appeal dismissal of freedom-of-speech suit”: The Philadelphia Inquirer today contains an article that begins, “Christian activists yesterday promised to appeal the dismissal of their federal court claim that Philadelphia officials infringed on their freedom of speech when they blocked anti-homosexual protesters at a 2004 Center City gay festival.”

You can access at this link last Thursday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

“Appeals court ruling favors privacy for Internet users; Personal data given to Web provider is protected from subpoena”: The Newark Star-Ledger today contains an article that begins, “In the first ruling of its kind in New Jersey, a state appeals court said yesterday computer users can expect the personal information they give their Internet provider will be considered private. A three-judge panel said a computer user whose screen name hid her identity has a ‘legitimate and substantial interest in anonymity.'”

And The Associated Press reports that “Court finds NJ users can expect privacy from Internet providers.”

You can access at this link yesterday’s ruling of the Superior Court of New Jersey’s Appellate Division.

“Court likely ends suit over beating at rally”: The Philadelphia Inquirer today contains an article that begins, “A federal appeals court refused yesterday to revive civil-rights claims against Gov. Rendell, District Attorney Lynne M. Abraham, and Teamsters Local 115, part of a lawsuit filed eight years ago by a man who says he was beaten and falsely prosecuted after protesting a 1998 appearance by President Clinton.”

According to the article, “The Adamses’ appeal posed an unusual problem for the Third Circuit. All three judges on the panel were specially named to hear the appeal after the Adamses’ lawyer asked the Third Circuit’s own judges to recuse themselves because Rendell’s wife, Marjorie O. Rendell, is a Third Circuit judge appointed by Clinton in 1997.”

You can access yesterday’s non-precedential ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — in which no Third Circuit judges participated — at this link.

“University of Phoenix Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Curb Abuse of False Claims Act”: This press release announces a petition for writ of certiorari that former Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson filed yesterday.

Federal Circuit holds that University of Missouri’s request for and participation in Patent and Trademark Office’s patent interference proceeding waived that university’s ability to invoke Eleventh Amendment immunity when opposing party sought judicial review of the PTO’s ruling: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit at this link.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit proposes to amend its local rules to require electronic filing of briefs and appendices: According to yesterday’s announcement of the proposed local rule changes, the Federal Circuit plans to “require the filing of a digital version of every brief and appendix filed by a party represented by counsel, unless counsel certifies that submission of a brief or appendix in digital format is not practical or would constitute hardship.” The deadline for commenting on the proposed rule changes is February 16, 2007.

The November 20, 2006 installment of my weekly “On Appeal” column for law.com was headlined “Electronic Filing on Appeal: What Does the Future Hold?”

“Mich. hails High Court ruling on inmate lawsuits; U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals was too harsh in weeding out prisoner suits, justices rule”: The Detroit News contains this article today.

And The Detroit Free Press reports today that “Highest court allows inmates to sue.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Court sets point of justice for inmates.”

“Supreme intervention sought; Former Gannon chaplain wants top court to hear her sex-discrimination case”: This article appeared yesterday in The Erie Times-News (via “Religion Clause“). The case questions the appropriate scope of the so-called “ministerial exception” to federal anti-discrimination laws.

My earlier coverage of the Third Circuit‘s rulings in this case (see here and here), which initially presented an interesting issue of “Dead Judges Voting,” can be accessed here, here, and here.

“Judge Won’t Aid Libby’s Memory Defense”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Anti-abortion message OKd; License plates to get ‘Choose Life’ motto”: The Chicago Tribune today contains an article that begins, “In a decision likely to fuel controversy in the fight over abortion rights, a federal judge in Chicago has ordered the Illinois secretary of state’s office to manufacture ‘Choose Life’ license plates.”

The Chicago Sun-Times reports today that “State must OK ‘Choose Life’ plate, judge says.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Judge OKs ‘Choose Life’ License Plates.”

I have uploaded to this link last Friday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

“Court Ruling Spotlights Calif. Prisons”: David Kravets of The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision striking down California’s criminal sentencing rules may cause disruptions, but it could be a blessing in disguise as the state grapples with severely overcrowded prisons.”

“Limits on Prison Suits Are Eased”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.

“Justices find California’s sentencing law flawed”: David G. Savage and Henry Weinstein have this article today in The Los Angeles Times. The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Letting juries judge: It took 30 years, but the Supreme Court was right to tell California that facts of a crime used to extend sentences need to be vetted by juries.”

Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Supreme Court Strikes Down California’s Sentencing Law.”

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Calif. criminal sentencing law tossed; Court says aggravating factors must be jury’s call, not judge’s.”

The New York Times reports that “Ruling’s Effect on California Inmates Is Probably Limited.”

In The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Supreme Court strikes down California’s sentencing law.”

In The San Jose Mercury News, Howard Mintz reports that “Judges’ power to sentence is curbed; High Court ruling apt to spur review of some state cases.”

Claire Cooper, legal affairs writer for The Sacramento Bee, reports that “Ruling upends sentencing law; State scrambling as high court cuts judges’ say on long terms.”

The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that “Ruling may lead to less jail time; High court strikes down state’s sentencing law.”

The Press-Enterprise of Riverside, California reports that “Strictest sentences limited; Inland counties gauge a ruling restricting the facts used in handing out long terms.”

And The Washington Times reports that “Court strikes down judges’ sentencing discretion.”

“‘Gone Wild’ figure is fined $500,000; Joe Francis also must do community service for not documenting ages of everyone in his videos”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

“Libby Jury Is Chosen; Arguments Set to Start”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

In The New York Times, Neil A. Lewis reports today that “Libby Jury Seated; Arguments May Start Today.” In addition, guest columnist Stacy Schiff has an op-ed entitled “A Trial to Remember” (TimesSelect temporary pass-through link).

And The Los Angeles Times reports that “Jury seated in trial of ex-Cheney aide; The 12 to hear evidence against ‘Scooter’ Libby include four who gave some criticism of Bush.”

“Canadian to Remain on U.S. Terrorist Watch List”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “Despite a Canadian inquiry that cleared a Syrian-born Canadian citizen of any terrorist ties, the Bush administration has formally refused a Canadian government request that it remove the man, Maher Arar, from the terrorist watch list, saying that the United States has secret information justifying his inclusion.”

The Washington Post reports today that “Canadian Will Remain On U.S. Watch List.”

And The Toronto Globe and Mail reports that “Arar to stay on watch list, U.S. says; Letter co-signed by homeland secretary two days before he met with Day.”

“Abortion Foes to Renew Efforts; Activists Rally on Mall, Vow to Keep Pressure on Congress”: The Washington Post contains this article today.

The New York Times reports today that “Thousands of Abortion Opponents Rally on Mall.”

And The Washington Times reports that “Pro-lifers march by the thousands.”

“Subpoenas Sought Against 2 Times Reporters”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

And The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Judge to review inquiry into leaks in Pellicano case.”

“Breaking silence and legal ground”: Today in The Los Angeles Times, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian David J. Garrow has this review of Jan Crawford Greenburg’s new book, “Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court and America’s Future.”

Garrow’s review begins, “You know the name ‘Woodward,’ as in Bob Woodward, whose insider-based accounts of Washington decision-making have been runaway bestsellers since Richard Nixon’s downfall. Well, now you should remember the name Greenburg because ABC News reporter Jan Crawford Greenburg’s account of what’s been happening at the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years is the richest and most impressive journalistic look at the panel since Woodward co-wrote ‘The Brethren’ in 1979.”

Garrow goes on to write that “There are so many standout stories in ‘Supreme Conflict’ that the book is an absolute must-read for anyone interested in the court.” You can access the complete review at this link.