“Supreme Court Justice Barack Obama?” Law professor Jeffrey Rosen will have this op-ed in Sunday’s edition of The Washington Post.

“[This is] the only case I know of, in any jurisdiction covered by the Fourth Amendment, where invasion of the home has been approved based on no showing whatsoever. Nada. Gar nichts. Rien du tout. Bupkes.” So writes Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, dissenting today from the Ninth Circuit‘s denial of rehearing en banc in a case. In something of a surprise, only one other judge on that court has joined in Chief Judge Kozinski’s dissent. Of course, that doesn’t mean no other judges voted in favor of granting rehearing en banc.

The original three-judge panel Ninth Circuit ruling in the case, which will not be reheard en banc, can be accessed here.

At the “Last Blog on Earth” of San Diego CityBeat, Dave Maass has a post titled “Appellate judge slams his colleagues, suggests SD police lied in warrantless search case.”

“Handgun Case Creates Odd Alliances; Conservative and Liberal Groups Join in Urging the Supreme Court to Strike Down Two Illinois Gun Bans Next Month”: Jess Bravin will have this article Friday in The Wall Street Journal.

“Ignore Expiration Dates: ‘Best by,’ ‘Sell by,’ and all those other labels mean very little.” Nadia Arumugam has this essay online at Slate.

Therein, she mentions a ruling that Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner issued last March. My earlier coverage of that ruling appears at this link.

Programming note: I’ll be in U.S. District Court this afternoon in connection with post-judgment motions that I have worked on in a case that is likely heading for appeal. Additional posts will appear here later today.

“Free Speech Takes Stage at High Court”: In today’s edition of The Daily Journal of California, Lawrence Hurley has an article that begins, “It could be a good year for freedom of speech at the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“Prosecutors press on with obstruction case in Wone killing”: Yesterday’s edition of The Washington Post contained an article that begins, “Federal prosecutors investigating the slaying of prominent Washington attorney Robert Wone said in a court filing that they were confident the three men charged with obstruction in the case know who killed Wone in 2006 and that they plan to introduce previous crimes associated with the men to bolster their case.”

And on Tuesday at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Mike Scarcella had a post titled “Prosecutors Outline Evidence, Murder Theory in Wone Case.”

“Minnesota campaign law faces test; Citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the Chamber of Commerce sued to end a ban on corporate giving”: This article appears today in The Minneapolis Star Tribune.

The St. Paul Pioneer Press reports today that “Businesses sue over campaign decision; Chamber of Commerce seeks clarification of corporation rights.”

And in related news, The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that “Campaign financing limits in S.D. axed; Cap on PAC donations among 3 laws tossed.”

“Police push for warrantless searches of cell phones”: Declan McCullagh has this report at CNET News.

“Small Illinois town willing to be next Guantanamo; President Obama wants to ship Guantanamo Bay detainees to a rural Illinois state prison; Why are locals welcoming the detainees?” The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

“Effort to remove judge resumes; Prosecutors object to report that says Keller broke no law”: Chuck Lindell has this article today in The Austin American-Statesman.

The San Antonio Express-News reports today that “Discipline sought against Keller.”

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “Prosecutors: death row judge deserves punishment.”

The objections to the Special Master’s Findings of Facts can be accessed here and here. My earlier coverage of those findings appears at this link.