“13 states ask for federal help on execution drug shortage”: CNN.com has this report.

“6th Circ. Fast Tracks Health Care Reform Fight”: Law360 has this report.

Pa. Supreme Court grants review to address issues of separation of powers and judicial deference to the legislative branch arising in a case involving whether an organization qualifies as a “purely public charity” under Pennsylvania’s Constitution: I was very pleased to learn a short time ago that today the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted review in a case in which I filed a petition for allowance of appeal on January 28, 2010. The order granting review is not yet available online, but the docket entries in the case evidencing the grant of review can be accessed here.

The specific question that the court has granted review to consider and resolve is:

Whether the Pennsylvania Legislature’s enactment of criteria in Act 55 for determining if an organization qualifies as a “purely public charity” under Pennsylvania’s Constitution is deserving of deference in deciding whether an organization qualifies as “a purely public charity” under Pennsylvania’s Constitution, or has the test provided in Hospital Utilization Project v. Commonwealth, 487 A.2d 1306 (Pa. 1985), occupied the constitutional field, leaving no room for legislative influence and input?

The petition for allowance of appeal that I filed in the case can be accessed here. The argument in favor of granting review of that issue appears under the heading, “This Case Squarely Presents The Very Issues That This Court Has Described As ‘Fundamental And Foundational’ Regarding The Proper Roles Of The Legislature And The Judiciary In Deciding Whether An Organization Qualifies As A ‘Purely Public Charity’ Under Pennsylvania’s Constitution.”

I linked to some additional information about the case in this post from January 28, 2010. Coincidentally, that’s the same date on which I argued the Third Circuit appeal that I will be rearguing en banc two weeks from today. Apparently the appeals on which I worked that day were not destined for prompt resolution.

As a result of today’s order, the Pa. Supreme Court will next receive briefing on the merits, and the case will thereafter be scheduled for oral argument, which probably will occur in Harrisburg.

Update: The order granting review can now be accessed online via this link.

“Cranberry Farmer, EPA Still Nose to Nose in 20-Year-Old Wetlands Fill Case”: John McArdle of Greenwire today has this report, the second in a three-part series. Part one can be accessed here.

Three-judge Ninth Circuit panel rejects challenge to Arizona’s manner of imposing the death penalty: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“American Indian leader praises Obama’s first judicial nominee in Oklahoma; Chickasaw Nation Lt. Gov. Jefferson Keel says ‘politics’ behind senators’ complaints”: This article appears today in The Oklahoman.

In today’s edition of The New York Times, Jonathan Bernstein has an op-ed entitled “Empty Bench Syndrome.”

Scripps Howard News Service has an essay by Dale McFeatters entitled “President, Congress slow to act on shortage of judges.”

The Salem (Ore.) Statesman Journal has an editorial entitled “Hernandez earned federal appointment; Ascent to district court was held up by Senate logjam.”

And The Oregonian contains an editorial entitled “What a long, strange trip to the federal bench.” Speaking of Portland, clips from the TV show “Portlandia” are freely available online via Hulu, including “I Dream of the 90s” and, from episode 3 featuring Aimee Mann and Sarah McLachlan, “This Bar Is Over.”

“Va. Supreme Court Justice Hassell dies at 55”: The Richmond Times-Dispatch has this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Virginia’s first black chief justice dies.”

“Virginia Files Its Cert Petition in the Mandate Case”: Orin Kerr has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.” You can access the petition for writ of certiorari by clicking here (via “The CockleBur“).

“How Judges Decide: A Multidimensional Empirical Typology of Judicial Styles in the Federal Courts.” Law professor Corey Rayburn Yung has today posted this article online at SSRN.

According to an email that I just received from the article’s author, the article “includes Ideology, Activism, Partisanship, and Independence Ratings of 178 Courts of Appeals judges based upon data from over 10,000 cases. Based upon those 4 measures, it further includes a typology of nine distinct judging styles exhibited by judges. It identifies the judicial style of all 178 judges studied (i.e., Judge Posner is a Pragmatic Moderate Repbulican and Judge Reinhardt is a Steadfast Liberal Democrat).”

Two weeks from today: Two weeks from today, I will be delivering my first oral argument to the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in my nearly 20 years of litigating appeals in private practice. I have, however, previously addressed the en banc Third Circuit at a ceremonial sitting, and the text of those remarks can be accessed here.

As the Third Circuit’s order requesting supplemental briefing at the en banc stage makes clear, one of the central issues in the case is: “Does including class members in a settlement-only class who do not have either a shared valid claim under the applicable substantive law, or a shared issue of fact relevant to different valid claims, preclude a finding that common issues of fact or law predominate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)?”

The original three-judge panel’s ruling in the case can be accessed here, and the oral argument audio can be accessed via this link (37.7MB Windows Media audio file). Earlier this week, I learned that an unofficial transcript of the three-judge panel oral argument exists, and you can access the transcript by clicking here.

At the rehearing en banc stage, I have prepared and filed a Supplemental Brief for Appellant, a Supplemental Reply Brief for Appellant, and a Response to Amicus Briefs on Rehearing. Class Counsel’s Supplemental Brief for Appellee can be accessed here.

“A Potpourri of Hits and Misses in Appellate Law”: This month’s installment of my monthly “Upon Further Review” column appeared yesterday in The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.

“Pfizer Told to Pay $10 Million Over Prempro Verdict”: Jef Feeley and Phil Milford have an article that begins, “Pfizer Inc. must pay more than $10 million in damages to an Arkansas woman who blamed her cancer on the company’s Prempro menopause drug, after an appeals court reinstated a jury verdict. A Pennsylvania appeals court overturned a judge’s ruling that Pfizer’s Wyeth unit deserved a new trial in connection with Mary Daniel’s claim that Prempro caused her breast cancer.”

You can access Monday’s ruling of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania at this link.

“Republicans Push Antiabortion Bills”: Naftali Bendavid has this article today in The Wall Street Journal.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports today that “Ohio Republican lawmakers introduce slew of bills aimed at restricting access to abortions, including first-of-its-kind ‘heartbeat’ proposal.”

The Kentucky Post reports that “Ohio could be new abortion battleground; ‘Heartbeat Bill’ introduced Wednesday.”

Yesterday’s edition of The Dayton Daily News contained an article headlined “‘Heartbeat Bill’ called a likely loser in court; Right to Life Society won’t back measure that has support in Ohio House.”

The Cincinnati Enquirer reported Monday that “Ohio bill would ban abortions once heartbeat is detected.”

And The Arizona Republic reports today that “Arizona lawmakers to consider anti-abortion bills; Legislature set to begin debate on restrictions.”

“North Carolina takes TVA pollution case to high court”: Today’s edition of The Chattanooga Times Free Press contains an article that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court could end up deciding how quickly the Tennessee Valley Authority shuts down or upgrades some of its aging coal-fired power plants.”

“Republicans ask court to toss climate case”: Politico.com has an article that begins, “Two top House Republicans and the Senate’s leading global warming skeptic asked the Supreme Court Monday to throw out a lawsuit seeking to force electric utilities to slash greenhouse gas emissions.”

And Laurence Hurley of Greenwire reports that “GOP Lawmakers Take Obama Admin’s Side in Supreme Court Greenhouse Gas Case.”

“Judge tours California’s rebuilt death chamber; U.S. judge is reviewing the state’s revised lethal injection procedures and facilities, five years in the making, to determine whether executions can resume; But other legal challenges could get in the way”: Carol J. Williams has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

Today in The San Jose Mercury News, Howard Mintz reports that “Federal judge tours new San Quentin execution chamber.”

And The Stockton Record contains an article headlined “No ruling on death chamber; Judge inspects remodeled facility; more hearings to come.”

“Testimony in Orie case to begin Thursday; Judge says jury trial could last two weeks”: This article appears today in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

And The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports today that “Seventy could testify at Sen. Jane Orie’s corruption trial.”

“Scalia and the Commerce Clause: Could a conservative judge vote to uphold Obamacare?” Robert VerBruggen has this essay today at National Review Online.