“The Chief and Bernie Ebbers”: Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“U.S. attorney worried ‘gloves would come off’ over criticism of ouster”: McClatchy Newspapers provide a report that begins, “A high-ranking Justice Department official told one of the U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration that if any of them continued to criticize the administration for their ousters, previously undisclosed details about the reasons they were fired might be released, two of the ousted prosecutors told McClatchy Newspapers.”

Available online at Slate: Dahlia Lithwick has a jurisprudence essay entitled “Specter Detector: U.S. attorney scandal update: Who’s to blame for those alarming Patriot Act revisions?”

And Emily Bazelon has a jurisprudence essay entitled “The War Powers Showdown: It’s legal for Congress to manage the war.”

“The Supreme Court: Place Your Bets.” In today’s issue of National Journal, Stuart Taylor Jr. has an essay that begins, “A year after conservative Justice Samuel Alito succeeded liberal-leaning Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a disagreement between two of the nation’s best legal journalists about how much President Bush has transformed the Supreme Court prompts this challenge to Court-watchers: What will the legal landscape look like in 10 years? Make your predictions and place your bets.”

“Probe of Prosecutor Firings Intensifies”: The AP provides this report.

And this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained audio segments entitled “Sen. Domenici Called About U.S. Attorney Four Times“; “Congressional Input on U.S. Attorneys“; and “The Independence of U.S. Federal Attorneys” (RealPlayer required).

“Court Rules Against Reform Party”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A federal appeals court upheld a ruling Friday ordering the Reform Party USA to pay the federal government $333,558 that regulators say was not spent properly during the party’s 2000 presidential convention.”

You can access last week’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit at this link.

“Part III of Confirm Them’s three-part Q&A session with Jan Crawford Greenburg”: You can access it at this link.

“Breyer Pushes Back Appearance on NPR”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has pushed back his appearance on NPR’s ‘Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me’ news quiz show by a week, the program said Monday.”

“Compromise Could Add Judgeship; 9th Circuit Would Gain One; D.C. Would Lose One”: Lawrence Hurley has this article (free access) today in The Daily Journal of California.

“Court OKs bonds for state religious schools”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times provides a news update that begins, “The state may help religious schools obtain bonds to pay for improvements, even if the school’s mission is overwhelmingly religious, the California Supreme Court ruled 4-3 today.”

And The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Ruling: California’s religious schools may receive bonds.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of California at this link.

“Ebbers Loses High Court Bid to Overturn Conviction”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News provides this report.

And Reuters reports that “Court rejects appeal by ex-Worldcom CEO Ebbers.”

“Guantanamo inmates appeal detention to top court”: James Vicini of Reuters provides this report.

“U.S. Attorneys May Have Been Fired over Politics”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Day to Day.”

Commentary in today’s issue of Legal Times: The newspaper contains a debate over Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, in which the U.S. Supreme Court is weighing the fate of a particular type of taxpayer challenge under the establishment clause. John W. Whitehead argues “Yes, They Have Standing to Sue,” while Law Professor Douglas W. Kmiec argues “No, They Don’t Have Standing to Sue.”

In addition, William L. Taylor has an essay entitled “Words Tainted by Ugly History: Justice Scalia’s continued use of the phrase ‘mixed blood’ aggravates old wounds.”

“Declarative Sentences: Congress has the power to make and end war–not manage it.” Law Professors Noah Feldman and Samuel Issacharoff have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Detainees Ask for Legal Rights Guarantee” and “Court Settles Sinochem Jurisdiction Case.”

“Detainees seek May 7 hearing”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Political Questions Surround Prosecutor’s Firing”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

U.S. Supreme Court vacates Ninth Circuit‘s ruling in anti-gay T-shirt case known as Harper v. Poway: The blog “Constitutionally Correct” notes this development appearing on page one of today’s Order List.

My earlier coverage of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling can be accessed here. My coverage of the Ninth Circuit’s denial of rehearing en banc can be accessed here. And, even more recently, you can access my post from January 2007 titled “Harper v. Poway to go away? Federal district court dismisses anti-gay T-shirt case.”

“Ex-WorldCom Chief’s Appeal Denied”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The Supreme Court turned down an appeal Monday from former WorldCom chief Bernard Ebbers, who is serving a 25-year prison sentence for fraud and conspiracy.”

And The AP is also reporting that “Court Denies Colo. Redistricting Challenge.”

Access online today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., No. 06-102: The Court has posted the opinion at this link. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion on behalf of a unanimous Court.

The Court today also issued a unanimous per curiam decision in Lance v. Coffman, No. 06-641, an election law case on direct appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.The Court has posted the ruling at this link.

“Court will not speed Hamdan case”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has posted today’s Order List at this link. The Court today granted review in no new cases.

“‘Lawrence’ Fails to Open Floodgates to Unfettered Sexual Freedom”: Today’s installment of my “On Appeal” essay for law.com can be accessed here and also here.

Decisions forthcoming today from the Supreme Court of California: California’s highest court today is expected to issue two decisions of potential interest.

The first case raises the following issues: “May tax-exempt bond financing be provided to pervasively sectarian schools when the financing covenants provide that the financed facilities will not be used for any sectarian purpose, or is the provision of such financing to such entities barred by article XVI, section 5 of the California Constitution or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution?”

And the second case raises the following issues: “(1) Did defendant forfeit his Confrontation Clause claim regarding admission of the victim’s prior statements concerning an incident of domestic violence under the doctrine of ‘forfeiture by wrongdoing’ because defendant killed the victim, thus rendering her unavailable to testify at trial? (2) Does the ‘forfeiture by wrongdoing’ doctrine apply where the alleged ‘wrongdoing’ is the same as the offense for which defendant is on trial?”

According to this notice of today’s forthcoming decisions, the rulings should be posted online at 1 p.m. eastern time.

This week’s installment of Tony Mauro’s Courtside column: Tony’s column this week focuses on the recent relocation of the Wilson-Epes Printing Co. and also on the recent successes of law school U.S. Supreme Court clinics.

“Judging prosecutors”: The Chicago Tribune today contains an editorial that begins, “Is the Bush administration carrying out a political purge in the offices of U.S. attorneys?”

“Judges don’t do justice to California’s diversity: The governor’s judicial appointments may be as diverse as they can be, but not as diverse as they should be.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

The St. Petersburg Times is reporting: Today’s newspaper contains an article headlined “Capital juries, appeals process criticized; More inmates could die of old age if Florida continues its pace of two executions a year.”

And an article headlined “Can court cases be hidden?” begins, “The Florida Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today about how to resolve issues surrounding the use of secret dockets.”

“HLS Group Gives Advocacy Award to Military Gay Rights Lobby”: This article appears today in The Harvard Crimson.

“For professional marshals”: The Boston Globe today contains an editorial that begins, “Most arms of government have made impressive efforts since 9/11 to improve the security of vulnerable targets. One glaring exception is protection of the federal courts, which has rested in the hands of regional US marshals whose appointments have been treated as political plums.”

My earlier, related coverage appears here.

“Patent Fights Are a Legacy of MP3’s Tangled Origins”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

“Terror Case Prosecutor Assails Defense Lawyer”: From Australia, The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “The chief prosecutor for the American military commissions that will try suspected terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has lashed out at the military lawyer for one of the detainees, a newspaper here reported in its weekend edition.”

“A Record of Failure at Center for Sex Offenders”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

“We Eat Horses, Don’t We?” Today in The New York Times, Christa Weil has an op-ed in which she writes, “Until the late 1970s, the Harvard Faculty Club served horse steaks as a regular menu item.”

“Risking Testy Justices and Faulty Justice”: Today in The New York Times, Adam Liptak‘s “Sidebar” column (TimesSelect temporary pass-through link) begins, “What the Supreme Court says, goes. Usually. But in a defiant decision two weeks ago, a federal appeals court in Washington conceded that it was ignoring parts of a 2004 Supreme Court decision on the rights of the men held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. That can make the Supreme Court testy, and it may help the detainees. Their lawyers plan to ask the court today to hear the case.”