“Appeals court refuses to rehear Moussaoui’s case”: The Associated Press has this report.

You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denying rehearing en banc at this link.

“Court refuses to stop DC’s gay marriage law”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has this report.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “D.C. same-sex marriages allowed.”

You can access the “In Chambers” opinion that Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. issued today at this link.

“Appeals Court rules in favor of Kamehameha Schools, rejects plaintiffs’ anonymity”: The Honolulu Star-Bulletin has a news update that begins, “Students who want to challenge Kamehameha Schools’ admission policy must reveal their names publicly to pursue the case in court, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today.”

And The Honolulu Advertiser has a news update headlined “Students contesting Kamehameha Schools policy denied anonymity.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“Virginia Supreme Court Justice Barbara M. Keenan was confirmed by the U.S. Senate today to fill a vacancy on the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.” So begins this news update from The Richmond Times-Dispatch.

And The Associated Press reports that “Senate confirms Keenan to Appeals Court seat.”

Speaking of the proliferation of separate opinions! Earlier today, I linked to this article published today in Pennsylvania Law Weekly in which I was quoted extensively on that topic with respect to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

And, as an aside, from time to time this blog has noted with amusement cases in which one federal appellate judge has both written the opinion for a unanimous three-judge panel and, in the very same case, issued a concurring opinion explaining how he or she would have resolved a matter that the rest of the panel saw no need to address. On some of those occasions, I have written that if only that same judge had also issued a dissent, he or she would have achieved the appellate opinion trifecta.

Today, courtesy of the Ninth Circuit, we see how one judge on a three-judge panel can issue both the majority opinion and a dissent, through the magic that is panel rehearing. The panel’s original opinion, from August 2009, can be accessed here. Today’s replacement opinion, in which one judge has both written the majority opinion and a dissent, can be accessed here. The other two judges on the panel limited themselves to just one opinion each, meaning that the three-judge panel’s revised ruling has generated a total of four separate opinions. Unfortunately, the judge who wrote both the majority opinion and a dissent, Circuit Judge Consuelo M. Callahan, has not achieved the appellate opinion trifecta, as she hasn’t yet issued a concurring opinion in the case. But, since this case is pending before the Ninth Circuit, don’t give up hope yet!

“Supreme Court tosses red-light camera violation, says city ordinance violates state law”: The News-Leader of Springfield, Missouri has an update that begins, “The Missouri Supreme Court today voided a former state trooper’s $100 ticket, saying Springfield’s method for enforcing red-light camera violations conflicts with state law.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Missouri at this link. The court’s unanimous opinion begins, “This is a $100 case. But sometimes, it’s not the money — it’s the principle.”

“Supreme Court Remains Divided Over Gun Control”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has a news update headlined “Court Leans to Pro-Gun-Rights Ruling.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers reports that “Supreme Court hears arguments on Chicago handgun law.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court seems ready to extend gun rights to cities, states; The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a landmark gun rights case that could apply the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms to both cities and states.”

And Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Justices debate Chicago handgun ban.”

Access online the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521: The Court has posted the transcript at this link.

“McDonald v. Chicago Instant Analysis”: Josh Blackman attended this morning’s oral argument and has this post at his blog.

“Supreme Court Appears Ready To Overturn Chicago Gun Ban”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

Bloomberg News reports that “Top U.S. Court Signals States Must Respect Gun Rights.”

And Reuters reports that “Top court considers reach of gun rights.”

“Justices may extend 2nd Amendment’s reach”: UPI has this report.

“In Chicago Gun Case, Supreme Court Sounds Note of Caution”: Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“2d Amendment extension likely”: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post that begins, “The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed poised to require state and local governments to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right to a gun, but with perhaps considerable authority to regulate that right.”

“Tailgating at the Supreme Court, Without the Cars”: In Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times, Adam Liptak will have an article that begins, “Mike Sacks likes to be the first person in line for big Supreme Court arguments, and he was feeling pretty confident when he arrived at the court Monday morning around 8, 26 hours before the court would hear a big gun-control case.”

“High court looks at reach of Second Amendment”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this post-oral argument report.

“Proliferating Opinions Part of Court’s Dialogue; Justices’ concurrences can have value, experts say”: In today’s edition of Pennsylvania Law Weekly, Leo Strupczewski has this article (in which I am extensively quoted) about the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Once you become a member of the U.S. Supreme Court‘s bar, you no longer need to experience the “fun” of camping out overnight to attend oral argument: But you can still enjoy it vicariously, thanks to Mike Sacks and Josh Blackman. Via those two links, you can access their post-oral argument updates sometime after 11 a.m. eastern time today.

“For Amputees, An Attorney Who Knows Their Pain”: Today in The Daily Journal of California, Lawrence Hurley has an article that begins, “When Conal Doyle walks to the lectern at the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday, he will do so with a detectable limp. The California-based plaintiffs’ lawyer, who recently relocated to Los Angeles from Oakland, will become one of the few known amputees to have argued before the justices.”

Access online today’s three U.S. Supreme Court decisions in argued cases: Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Mac’s Shell Service, Inc. v. Shell Oil Products Co., No. 08-240. You can access the oral argument transcript at this link.

Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court in Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, No. 08-103. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen G. Breyer joined. Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not participate in the decision. You can access the oral argument transcript at this link.

And Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court in Johnson v. United States, No. 08-6925. Justice Alito issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. You can access the oral argument transcript at this link.

“Nevada Supreme Court hears Mack plea for new trial”: Today in The Reno Gazette-Journal, Martha Bellisle has an article that begins, “Reno businessman Darren Mack, convicted of killing his wife and shooting their divorce judge, should get a new trial because his lawyers allowed him to plead guilty without discussing defenses that would have meant a lighter sentence, his new lawyer told the Nevada Supreme Court on Monday.”

“Ten Commandments monument to come down soon; This follows news that the U.S. Supreme Court won’t hear the case”: The Tulsa World contains this article today.

The Oklahoman reports today that “U.S. Supreme Court won’t hear Bible marker case.”

And Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court lets stand order to remove Ten Commandments monument; A lower court ruled that a Ten Commandments monument on the lawn of an Oklahoma courthouse was an endorsement of religion, and violated the First Amendment; The Supreme Court let that decision stand.”

“Miranda isn’t forever: Every suspect is entitled to a lawyer; But the Supreme Court has set a time limit.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Justices Hear Appeal of Ex-Chief of Enron”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

Today in The Houston Chronicle, Mary Flood reports that “Justices show concern over Skilling case.”

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Skilling case latest to test ‘honest services.’”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Skilling may get legal break; The Supreme Court might strike part of his conviction because it rests on a vague law.”

Joan Biskupic of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court hears ex-Enron CEO’s appeal; Skilling says jury was tainted in his fraud trial.”

In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall report that “Justices Question Selection of Skilling Jury.”

Financial Times reports that “US top court hears Enron chief’s appeal.”

And Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal reports that “Supreme Court Focuses on Jury Impartiality in Enron Case.”

“Justices Debate Whether Lawyer Negligence Can Extend Habeas Deadline”: Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal has this report.

“Gun rights lawyer gives hope to liberal causes; 14th Amendment argument opens to gay rights, abortion”: This article appears today in The Washington Times.

Today’s edition of The Chicago Tribune contains an article headlined “As gun-control case goes before Supreme Court, both sides speak out; Chicago’s handgun ban challenged.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “High court looks at reach of Second Amendment.”

The New York Times contains an editorial entitled “The Second Amendment’s Reach.”

The Washington Post contains an editorial entitled “High noon for high court on gun-rights case.”

The Orange County Register contains an editorial entitled “Gun case loaded with implications.”

And in The Tallahassee Democrat, Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum has an op-ed entitled “Standing up for our Second Amendment.”