“Stephen Breyer praises U.S. Supreme Court’s deliberative process despite differences in beliefs”: The Palm Beach Daily News has this update.

“Peterson prosecutors argue against ‘Drew’s Law'”: The Chicago Tribune has a news update that begins, “In attempting to get hearsay statements admitted in Drew Peterson’s murder case, Will County prosecutors today found themselves arguing against the very law they helped create.”

And The Chicago Sun-Times has a news update headlined “Court hears appeal on usage of Peterson’s dead ex’s statements.”

“California high court to rule on key Prop. 8 issue”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this news update.

Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News has an update headlined “California Supreme Court jumps back into gay marriage fray.”

The Associated Press reports that “Calif court to answer question on gay marriage ban.”

Bloomberg News reports that “California Court to Rule on Prop. 8 ‘Standing’ Issue.”

And Reuters reports that “Gay marriage case back in California court, adds delay.”

You can access today’s order and news release of the Supreme Court of California at this link.

“Obama Admin Weighs Appeal of Contempt Ruling in Offshore Drilling Moratorium Case”: Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire has this report.

“Third Circuit Judge Denies Lawyer’s Request for Order That ‘Will Compel . . . Volokh to Remove His . . . Blog [Post]'”: Eugene Volokh has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Asked about WikiLeaks, Breyer gives away little”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer tantalized a Florida audience with his comments about the case of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, but gave away little about his legal stance.”

“Political fight over Guantanamo won’t die”: Pete Yost of The Associated Press has this report.

“CIA: If caught, bin Laden would be sent to Gitmo.” The Associated Press has this report.

“Dangerous Threats”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial that begins, “Representative Denny Rehberg, a Republican and Montana’s House member, boasts that he brings Made-in-Montana solutions to Washington. His latest, proposed last week in a speech advocating states’ rights to the State Legislature, is to put a judge ‘on the Endangered Species List.'”

“Copyright lawsuits filed over pat-down photo”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A law firm that targets the unauthorized use of news content on the Internet has filed 32 lawsuits in federal court in Colorado seeking to stop the use of a Denver Post photograph showing an airport pat-down.”

One week from today: One week 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 previewed that oral argument and provided links to the supplemental en banc briefing, the three-judge panel’s opinion, and the transcript and audio of the original oral argument in this post from last week.

In the interim, Class Counsel have filed a Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) letter to draw new authority to the court’s attention, and this morning I filed this FRAP 28(j) response letter.

Last but not least, the en banc Third Circuit must now decide whether it wishes also to hear from counsel for other appellants at the en banc reargument next Wednesday morning. My client was the only appellant who raised the issues that were the subject of the three-judge panel’s ruling, and — when the case was argued before the three-judge panel — I was the only counsel for appellant from whom the three-judge panel requested oral argument. Class Counsel’s petition for rehearing en banc focused exclusively on the issues that only my client had raised, as did the Third Circuit’s order requesting supplemental briefing at the en banc stage.

Nevertheless, the grant of rehearing en banc brings the entire case before the en banc court, and thus counsel for other appellants raising issues that the original three-judge panel never reached wish to share argument time at the en banc hearing. Whether the en banc Third Circuit wishes to hear from other counsel arguing other issues that the original panel saw no need to address on the merits remains to be seen.

“Who’ll replace Graves on bench? Governor must appoint replacement until 2012 election.” This article appears today in The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi.

“Anthrax report casts doubt on scientific evidence in FBI case against Bruce Ivins”: Jerry Markon has this front page article today in The Washington Post.

The New York Times reports today that “Expert Panel Is Critical of F.B.I. Work in Investigating Anthrax Letters.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Evidence linking anthrax to Bruce Ivins ‘not as definitive as stated,’ panel says; Researchers say they have no reason to believe federal scientist Bruce Ivins was not involved in mailing letters containing anthrax that killed five people; But they find some cracks in the FBI’s conclusions.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that “Panel Questions Key Evidence in Anthrax Case.”

And The Washington Times reports that “Review panel faults FBI on anthrax probe; Report questions conclusions in 2001 attacks.”

“In Orie trial, witnesses continue to testify that campaign work was done on state time”: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette contains this article today.

And The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports today that “Habay case didn’t deter Orie work, staffers say.”

“Prosser, Kloppenburg to face off for Supreme Court seat”: This article appears today in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

“California Supreme Court to consider key issue in battle over same-sex marriage”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this blog post.

“Are conservatives endangering the high court?” Columnist Katrina vanden Heuvel has this essay online at The Washington Post.