Available online from law.com: Shannon P. Duffy has an article headlined “Will Fonda’s On-Air Blooper Help CBS in the Janet Jackson Case?”

And the new installment of my “On Appeal” column is headlined “The Appellate Judge Has an Opinion, but He’s Not Sharing It.” The latest manifestation of this phenomenon can be seen on page 17 of this ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued today.

“Court delays deportation of unlucky immigrant”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “A federal appeals court gave a second chance Thursday to an immigrant who was ordered deported after his car overheated on a Southern California freeway and he showed up two hours late for his asylum hearing.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“West Wing Aides Cited for Contempt; Refusal to Testify Prompts House Action”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

The New York Times reports today that “House Votes to Issue Contempt Citations.”

And The Los Angeles Times reports that “House OKs contempt citations against Bush aides; The vote targets Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former Counsel Harriet Miers, who failed to answer subpoenas in the U.S. attorney firing case. Republicans stage a walkout.”

“Bush Appeals to Justices on Detainees Case”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.

“House Defies Bush on Wiretaps; Expiring Law’s Fate Is at Issue”: This front page article appears today in The Washington Post. In addition, Mike McConnell has an op-ed entitled “A Key Gap In Fighting Terrorism: Private Firms Need Liability Protection.”

The New York Times reports today that “House Leaves Surveillance Law to Expire.”

The Christian Science Monitor reports that “House set to let warrantless eavesdropping law lapse; President lobbied hard Thursday for renewal of Protect America Act, which expires Feb. 16.”

And from National Public Radio, today’s broadcast of “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “Intel Chief: Telecom Immunity a Security Issue.” And this evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “National Security Immunity Sought for Phone Firms.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Court Rules Waiters Are Entitled to Fees Disguised as Tips”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “In a major victory for the state’s restaurant employees, New York’s highest court ruled on Thursday that restaurants must pay their wait staff any mandatory service fees that customers are led to believe are substitutes for tips.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the New York State Court of Appeals at this link.

“Judge Says Use of MySpace May Violate a Court Order”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

And yesterday’s issue of The Staten Island Advance reported that “Teen to face real charges for cyberspace behavior; MySpace ‘friend requests’ may have violated protection order.”

“Obama and Guns”: ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg has this post today at her “Legalities” blog.

“Why Now? The timing of the Guantanamo trials is not an accident.” Charles Swift has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

And online at The New Republic, Benjamin Wittes has an essay entitled “Trial by Fire: The trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will finally reveal how Bush’s military commissions work–or, more likely, why they fail.”

“Obama Supports Individual Gun Rights”: The Associated Press provides this report (updated link).

“Expanded argument on Exxon Valdez”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

You can access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

Of Beethoven, of vodka, or of the Bill of Rights containing the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution? The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that if a criminal suspect indicates in any manner during custodial questioning that he wishes to remain silent, interrogation must cease. Today, a fifteen-judge en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit resolves whether a criminal defendant’s statement, during an interrogation, that “I plead the fifth” is sufficient to invoke the right to remain silent. Complicating this question, the appeal arises in the habeas context challenging a state court conviction and is governed by the federal law whose acronym is AEDPA. The majority, in a decision that you can access here, overturns the federal district court’s denial of habeas relief.

Back on November 6, 2006, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel voted 2-1 to affirm the district court’s denial of habeas relief. Now-Chief Judge Alex Kozinski joined in the original panel’s majority opinion, which a federal district judge sitting by designation wrote. The judge who dissented from the panel opinion wrote the en banc majority opinion on behalf of a sizable majority. Because this case was reargued en banc before Kozinski became the Ninth Circuit’s chief judge, he was not guaranteed a seat on the en banc panel, and he was not randomly selected to serve on the en banc panel. Thus, we can only imagine what he might have said in response to today’s ruling.

“Arguing Over Argument Time in D.C. Gun Case”: Tony Mauro has this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

Today is the final day to comment on pending amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and other federal procedural rules: I linked to the text of those amendments, and to the email address where comments can be submitted, in the February 4, 2008 installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com, headlined “Deadline for Commenting on Federal Appellate Rule Amendments Is Fast Approaching.”

This comment from Brian Wolfman of Public Citizen Litigation Group echoes one of the concerns that I voiced in that essay. And attorney Stephen P. Stoltz has submitted a comment questioning whether setting a deadline at “midnight” on a particular day means that the deadline occurs immediately upon the beginning of the day instead of at the day’s absolute completion. You can access all of the comments relating to the proposed appellate rule changes via this link.

“Suit Accuses Homeland Security of Illegal Searches”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

I linked to the complaint initiating suit in this earlier post.

By a vote of 8-5, en banc Sixth Circuit holds that the federal constitutional right to the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants seeking first-tier review of plea-based convictions in Michigan state court does not apply retroactively on habeas review: You can access today’s ruling at this link. The U.S. Supreme Court specifically recognized this right to counsel in Halbert v. Michigan, a ruling that issued in June of 2005.

The D.C. Circuit affirms the dismissal of a lawsuit brought against a retired general of the Israeli Defense Forces by the relatives of civilians who died or were injured when IDF forces attacked a UN compound in Lebanon where civilians had sought refuge: You can access today’s ruling at this link.

To obtain a conviction under a provision of the federal “[a]ggravated identity theft” statute, must the government prove the defendant knew the “means of identification” he “transfer[red], possesse[d], or use[d]” actually belonged to “another person”? Or, is it sufficient for the government to show that the means of identification happened to belong to another person? Today, the majority on a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit holds that the government must prove that the defendant actually knew the identification in question belonged to someone else. The ruling thus gives rise to a circuit split.

“Experts have doubts about grand jury bid; Suit to allow the disclosure of evidence appears unprecedented”: The Houston Chronicle today contains an article that begins, “Legal analysts are skeptical that members of a disbanded grand jury who are asking a court for permission to disclose evidence presented to them in a politically sensitive arson case will meet with any success. Six members of the grand jury that indicted Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina and his wife in connection with a suspicious fire at their home last summer have resurrected an 85-year-old case to bolster their lawsuit, which seeks to let them speak openly about secret matters because of the criticism that was directed at them by prosecutors.”

The Associated Press reports that “Grand jurors sue to disclose evidence in case against Supreme Court justice; Six indicted Supreme Court justice, but DA dismissed the charges.”

And ABCNews.com provides a report headlined “A Texas Drama: the ‘Runaway’ Grand Jury; Grand Jurors Want to Indict a Supreme Court Justice; a Prosecutor Dismissed the Charges.”

Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro reports that “Exxon Spill Award Hits High Court; Justices to decide whether $2.5 billion verdict will stand.”

In other news, “N.Y. High Court Approves Derivative Lawsuits for LLCs; Dissenting judge calls the majority’s ruling ‘unique in the annals of the Court of Appeals.’” You can access yesterday’s ruling of the New York State Court of Appeals at this link.

And an article is headlined “Will Fajitagate Case Set 9th Circuit Precedent?” I had this post yesterday about the case.