“Slimed Online: Cyber-bullying has reached a new low–at the highest levels of the professional world; So when anonymous attackers went after two Yale law students, they struck back and filed suit; Their case may help change the rules.” David Margolick will have this article in the March 2009 issue of Conde Nast Portfolio magazine (via “Copyrights & Campaigns“).

Ninth Circuit grants rehearing en banc in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc. You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

Previously, a divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the order of a California federal district court certifying the largest sex discrimination class action in U.S. history. You can access online the three-judge panel’s original ruling and its amended ruling issued some ten months later.

You can access some of this blog’s earlier coverage of this case here, here, here, and here.

It appears that the Ninth Circuit has carefully considered whether to grant rehearing en banc in this case, as Wal-Mart’s rehearing petition presumably had been pending for about a year or so.

“Washington Legal Community to Honor Senior Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher”: The Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit yesterday issued a news release that begins, “The Washington state legal community and invited guests from across the country will gather next month in Seattle to honor Senior Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.”

It appears that Senior Judge Fletcher’s son, Ninth Circuit Judge William A. Fletcher, won’t be recused from participating in the event, as he’s slated to deliver the keynote address.

D.C. Circuit holds that federal government need not pay the attorneys’ fees of woman who spoke up to protect the mute swan: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued this ruling today.

“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg returns home; The Supreme Court justice leaves the hospital with an encouraging report showing no sign her cancer had spread”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Ginsburg Returns Home; Spleen Removed in Cancer Surgery.”

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “No spread of cancer for Supreme Court’s Ginsburg.”

The Associated Press reports that “Ginsburg’s cancer has not spread, court says.”

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “Justice Ginsburg Home From Hospital.”

The Public Information Office of the U.S. Supreme Court issued this press release today.

“Judge in Medtronic case didn’t disclose son’s work”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Medtronic Inc. on Friday defended a judge who dismissed thousands of lawsuits against the company amid revelations that his son works for a law firm that represents the medical device maker. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Kyle sided with the Minneapolis-based company in a case involving thousands of patients who received potentially faulty wires used with the company’s heart-shocking Sprint Fidelis defibrillators.”

And The Wall Street Journal reports today that “Judge’s Son Had a Link To Medtronic” (subscription required; free access via Google News).

“An Effort to Upgrade a Court Archive System to Free and Easy”: Today in The New York Times, John Schwartz has an article that begins, “Americans have grown accustomed to finding just about anything they want online fast, and free. But for those searching for federal court decisions, briefs and other legal papers, there is no Google. Instead, there is Pacer, the government-run Public Access to Court Electronic Records system designed in the bygone days of screechy telephone modems. Cumbersome, arcane and not free, it is everything that Google is not.”

“Obama’s Antiterror Progress: He embraces Bush policies on secrecy, rendition.” This editorial appears today in The Wall Street Journal.

“Will Chief Justice Roberts Have to Recuse Himself in One of This Term’s Blockbuster Cases, Wyeth v. Levine? Why Calls for His Recusal May Exemplify a Too-Costly Quest for Perfect Ethical Purity.” Edward Lazarus has this essay online at FindLaw.