Programming note: On Wednesday, I’ll presenting an appellate oral argument to a three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania sitting in Harrisburg. Because the case I’m arguing is toward the end of the day’s oral argument list, and because Harrisburg is nearly two hours away, additional posts may not appear here until later in the day tomorrow.

“Court rules in favor of man in witness protection”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Mike Scarcella has a post titled “Appeals Court Sides with DOJ in Suit Against Protected Federal Witness.”

“NY appeals judges squabble over lawyer’s sentence”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Federal appeals judges in New York are bickering as they pressure a lower court judge to toughen the sentence of a lawyer convicted of terrorism charges. The judges decided not to have the entire federal appeals court in Manhattan hear the appeal of lawyer Lynne Stewart’s sentence of a little over two years in prison. But they took the unusual step of writing opinions critical of each other in announcing that decision Tuesday.”

You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the accompanying concurring and dissenting opinions, at this link.

Circuit Judge Rosemary S. Pooler issued an interesting concurring opinion in which she writes, with regard to judges who issue opinions concurring in or dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, that “the case is not before them, and what they may say about it has as much force of law as if those views were published in a letter to the editor of their favorite local newspaper.” Judge Pooler further observes, “By employing the simple tactic of calling for an en banc poll, active judges provide themselves with an opportunity to opine on a case that was never before them. This amounts to an exercise in free speech rather than an exercise of any judicial function.”

“7th Circuit: No Preemption for Failure-to-warn Claims Involving SSRI.” Thompson Publishing Group has a newsbrief that begins, “In one of the most important decisions on the issue of federal preemption of state law tort claims involving a pharmaceutical since the Supreme Court considered the issue in Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2009), a federal appeals court has held that failure-to-warn claims brought against the manufacturer of the antidepressant Paxil are not preempted.”

You can access today’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link. Senior Circuit Judge Terence T. Evans wrote the opinion of the court.

The “Drug and Device Law” blog condemns the ruling in a post that you can access here.

“Yoo lashes out at Obama nominee”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “Former Bush administration lawyer John Yoo, fighting a suit by a prisoner who accuses him of approving unlawful detention and torture, is taking aim at his detractors, including President Obama’s nominee to head the office where Yoo once worked.”

WSJ.com’s “Law Blog” has posted the reply brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“CBS fights ’04 Jackson ‘wardrobe malfunction’ fine”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “After six years of legal wrangling and one Supreme Court review of Janet Jackson’s infamous Super Bowl ‘wardrobe malfunction,’ CBS argued anew Tuesday that it should not be held responsible for the half-second of nudity.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “CBS Faces New Challenge Over Janet Jackson Exposure.”

You can access the audio of today’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit via this link (36.0MB Windows Media audio file).

Today’s rulings in argued cases from the U.S. Supreme Court: Earlier today, while I was away from the blog, the Court issued two rulings in argued cases.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Hertz Corp. v. Friend, No. 08-1107. You can access the oral argument transcript at this link. The Associated Press reports that “Court says business HQ is where executives are.” And at “Althouse,” Ann has a post titled “Today, all 9 Justices embrace a clear rule over a more nuanced and litigation-breeding interpretation.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court in Florida v. Powell, No. 08-1175. You can access the oral argument transcript at this link. All of the Justices joined in the opinion of the Court, except for Justice John Paul Stevens, who issued a dissenting opinion, and Justice Breyer, who joined in Part II of both the majority and dissenting opinions. Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court OKs Florida Miranda rights warnings.” Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. High Court Backs Police on Questioning Suspects.” And Reuters reports that “Court upholds police warning of suspect rights.”

“Justices seek to weigh anti-terrorism law, free-speech rights; The Supreme Court justices sound closely split over whether a USC professor illegally advised the Kurdistan Workers Party, listed as a foreign terrorist group”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “High court weighs anti-terror material support law.”

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court considers terrorism support law.”

Justin Blum and Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News report that “Terror Support Law Considered by U.S. Supreme Court.”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Anti-terrorism case not an easy one.”

And earlier, on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg previewed the oral argument in an audio segment entitled “Does The Patriot Act Violate Free Speech?”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, No. 08-1498.

“Virginia Thomas Launching ‘Liberty Central’ Site”: Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“On October 4, 2010, Elena Kagan Will Ask Her First Question As A Supreme Court Justice, And Justice Ginsburg will look across the bench at her new colleague and smile”: Tom Goldstein has this lengthy post at “SCOTUSblog.”