“Mulling court’s schools ruling; Experts divided whether diversity steps are needed”: The Seattle Post-Intelligencer today contains an article that begins, “Seven months after the U.S. Supreme Court shot down the racial tiebreaker once used to help assign students to public schools in Seattle, educators and legal experts are still divided over how to interpret the ruling, and what steps — if any — districts could take to foster diversity in schools.”

“Exxon plaintiffs brace for Supreme Court arguments”: This article appeared yesterday in The Cordova Times of Prince William Sound, Alaska.

And in today’s issue of The Anchorage Daily News, John Devens has an op-ed entitled “Punitive damages are needed to keep big oil accountable.”

“James Bentley’s attorney files brief with U.S. Supreme Court”: Today’s edition of The Gazette of Cedar Rapids, Iowa contains an article that begins, “An attorney for a child pornographer facing trial on child sexual abuse charges has argued that the U.S. Supreme Court should uphold an Iowa Supreme Court finding that allowing a videotape of a deceased child into evidence would violate his client’s right to confront and cross-examine his accuser.”

Earlier this week, The Associated Press had a report about the case headlined “26 states join Iowa in seeking Supreme Court review.”

“Who Should Own Guns in America?” Voice of America provides this report (text with links to audio) in which Law Professor Eugene Volokh and Ben Wittes are quoted.

“In Reversal, Courts Uphold Local Immigration Laws”: The New York Times on Sunday will contain a news analysis that begins, “After groups challenging state and local laws cracking down on illegal immigration won a series of high-profile legal victories last year, the tide has shifted as federal judges recently handed down several equally significant decisions upholding those laws.”

“Six Guantanamo Detainees Expected To Be Charged for Sept. 11 Attacks”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal provides this news update.

“W.Va. Judges Asked to Recuse in Massey Coal Case”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring John Grisham appeared on yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“A smoldering controversy at UCLA: The school accepts money from tobacco giant Philip Morris in its three-year study of nicotine addiction; Teenagers and monkeys are part of the research.” Today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times contains an article that begins, “Here’s a recipe for academic controversy: First, find dozens of hard-core teenage smokers as young as 14 and study their brains with high-tech scans. Second, feed vervet monkeys liquid nicotine and then kill at least six of them to examine their brains. Third, accept $6 million from tobacco giant Philip Morris to pay for it all. Fourth, cloak the project in unusual secrecy.”

“Appellate Panel Rejects E.P.A. Emission Limits”: The New York Times contains this article today.

The Washington Post reports today that “Court Rejects Emission ‘Trades’; EPA Effort to Limit Mercury Output Is Said to Ignore Law.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Court rejects Bush’s mercury emissions trading plan; EPA’s ‘cap-and-trade’ approach — letting coal- or oil-fired power plants to buy credits from cleaner facilities — broke the Clean Air Act, the judges said.”

And yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Court Rejects Bush Policy on Mercury Emissions” (RealPlayer required).

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.

“Junkets for Judges: They should end, in return for higher pay.” This editorial appears today in The Washington Post.

“Cheney Joins Congress In Opposing D.C. Gun Ban; Vice President Breaks With Administration”: Robert Barnes has this front page article today in The Washington Post.

“Electrocution Is Banned in Last State to Rely on It”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

The Omaha World-Herald today contains articles headlined “Nebraska Supreme Court says electrocution unconstitutional“; “State senators see no quick fix to carry out executions“; “Murder victims’ families dismayed by decision“; “Ruling won’t slow down local capital cases“; and “Case of child’s killing led to ruling.”

And The Lincoln Journal Star contains articles headlined “Electric chair, likened to torture, declared unconstitutional“; “If not the electric chair, then what?“; “Ruling divides those close to death row’s victims“; “Death row inmate says ruling ignites hope“; and “Pastors applaud death penalty ruling.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Nebraska at this link.

“Toward Drug Case Justice”: The New York Times today contains an editorial that begins, “Attorney General Michael Mukasey tried to scare the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday into blocking a responsible plan by the United States Sentencing Commission to address the gross disparity in penalties for possession or sale of crack cocaine and those for powder cocaine offenses. His alarm is unwarranted.”

And yesterday, The Los Angeles Times reported that “Confusion surrounds new crack sentencing rules; Mukasey and some U.S. attorneys are not on the same page when it comes to the controversial guidelines.”

“Dobson’s Choice”: This editorial published today in The Wall Street Journal misspells the last name of President Bush’s former U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers.

“Government contractor not entitled to immunity; A debt collector paid by prosecutors can be sued, judges rule”: This article appeared yesterday in The Los Angeles Times.

Thursday in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reported that “Government contractors denied legal immunity.”

Thursday in The San Jose Mercury News, Howard Mintz reported that “Court sides with consumers; Collections company used by District Attorneys can be sued.”

And law.com provides a report headlined “9th Circuit: No Sovereign Immunity for DA Contractors.”

You can access Wednesday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“Punitive Damages, Retribution, and Due Process”: Law Professor Mark A. Geistfeld has this article (abstract; full-text PDF) in the January 2008 issue of the Southern California Law Review. (Via “Concurring Opinions.”)

The article’s abstract begins, “Tort law provides awards of punitive damages for reasons of deterrence and retribution. In light of a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Phillip Morris USA v. Williams, the retributive rationale for punitive damages will inevitably come under heightened scrutiny. The case involves a punitive award of $79.5 million, which is ninety-seven times greater than the compensatory damages, making it constitutionally suspect for exceeding the single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages. The Court, though, has never addressed the constitutional issue in a case involving serious bodily injury or death, and so Williams poses a number of new questions.”

Coincidentally, the new installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com is headlined “Not Even U.S. Supreme Court Victory Can Vanquish $79.5 Million Punitive Award Against Philip Morris.”

“Cheney disagrees in D.C. gun case”: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post that begins, “Vice President Richard Cheney, parting company with the official Bush Administration position on the test case before the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment, signed onto a brief Friday urging the Justices to strike down the District of Columbia handgun ban without ordering any further proceedings.”