“Reach of Clean Water Act Is at Issue in 2 Supreme Court Cases”: This article will appear Monday in The New York Times.

On this date in “How Appealing” history: Two years ago, on February 19, 2004, I had a post titled “The perils of an advocate’s trying to replicate an allegedly hostile work environment from the lectern at the start of an appellate oral argument.” The humorous oral argument exchange recounted in that post continues to amuse. Thanks to the passage of time, you can now access online not only the oral argument audio but also the opinion.

And one year ago today, I had a post titled “Gorilla + breast fetish = litigation.” Also, I linked here to an article published that day in The Providence (R.I.) Journal headlined “Chief justice pulls plug on his Web site.”

“The Stealth Revolution, Continued”: Law Professor Bruce Ackerman‘s recent follow-up to his essay from one year ago predicting how vacancies might enable the Bush Administration to alter the balance of the U.S. Supreme Court can be accessed here. (Via “PrawfsBlawg“).

“First Circuit Relocates to HLS”: The Harvard Law Record provides a report that begins, “Last Wednesday the First Circuit Court of Appeals sat far from their usual location at the John J. Moakley Courthouse in downtown Boston.” Meanwhile, the blog “Magic Cookie” offers a post titled “The First Circuit comes to us” providing one law student’s reaction to the oral arguments.

“Pickering: Judges shouldn’t legislate.” Yesterday’s issue of The Hattiesburg American contained an article that begins, “Retired federal Judge Charles Pickering said Friday he believes the U.S. Constitution should be amended so judges cannot ‘legislate from the bench.'”

“Senior Lawyer at Pentagon Broke Ranks on Detainees”: This article will appear Monday in The New York Times.

“Idaho lawmakers say they will challenge California senators over 9th Circuit seats”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Man grabs thief who took Lefkow kin’s purse”: This article appeared yesterday in The Chicago Sun-Times.

“Ninth Circuit rejects efforts to block California execution”: The blog “Sentencing Law and Policy” describes the latest developments in the case of Michael Morales, who is scheduled to be executed on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, reporting on a somewhat related development, the blog “Crime & Federalism” offers a post titled “Who’s Unethical Now?”

“Citing finances, Legal Affairs magazine stops publication”: Last Thursday’s edition of The Yale Daily News contained this article.

“Retired Justice O’Connor to dedicate law school”: This article appeared Friday in The News-Record of Greensboro, North Carolina.

“U.S. Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit Judges Frank Easterbrook and Diane Wood speak about how much deference is appropriate when reviewing cases involving government agencies”: Via C-SPAN‘s “America & the Courts” program, you can view the presentation described in the title of this post by clicking here (RealPlayer required).

That dam case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court: The Portland Press Herald today contains an article headlined “Maine dam case reaches top court” that begins, “The Presumpscot River, one of Maine’s first industrial waterways, will be at the center of high stakes U.S. Supreme Court arguments Tuesday that could alter the fate of dams and rivers nationwide.”

“Legalize it? Should the law make room for warrantless wiretapping? The debate has already begun.” Slate’s Emily Bazelon has this essay today in the Ideas section of The Boston Globe.

In today’s edition of The Chicago Tribune: An article reports that “Enron trial turns on truth, intent; Prosecutors have tough task of proving Lay, Skilling knew Enron’s situation and lied about it.”

And an article is headlined “Blurry on BlackBerry: The legal battle over the mobile messaging system could change the way millions of U.S. customers use the hand-held devices and result in a windfall for the company started by a Chicago-area inventor.”

“Industries Get Quiet Protection From Lawsuits; Federal agencies are using arcane regulations and legal opinions to shield automakers and others from challenges by consumers and states”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

“Does Money Still Talk? The Supreme Court revisits the limits of campaign cash.” This article will appear in the February 27, 2006 issue of U.S. News & World Report.

“GI injured in Afghan war wins lawsuit; Unique case: Court awards default judgment to man blinded in one eye.” Saturday’s edition of The Salt Lake Tribune contained an article that begins, “A Utah soldier blinded in one eye during a firefight in Afghanistan that killed his comrade has won a default judgment against a father accused of training his young son to be a terrorist.”

And The Associated Press reports that “GI, Widow Win $102.6M Judgment for Attack.”

This past Thursday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, written by District Judge Paul G. Cassell, can be accessed here. The opinion begins, “This may be the first Anti-Terrorism Act suit filed by members of the United States Armed Forces for injuries they suffered while serving as soldiers abroad.”