On this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered“: The broadcast contained segments entitled “British Woman Loses Bid for Frozen Embryos” and “Former CFO Testifies Against Enron Executives” (RealPlayer required).

“Professors of Pretense”: In Wednesday’s edition of The Washington Post, columnist George F. Will will have this op-ed about yesterday’s Solomon Amendment ruling.

Available online at law.com: In news from California, “Judge’s Conduct Overturns Death Sentence.”

And in news from Texas, “Fastow Admits Helping Enron Manipulate Earnings.”

“Pressure’s on RIM to produce; With lawsuit behind it, firm must refocus on product development, analysts say”: This article appears today in The Toronto Globe and Mail.

“Breyer Sees More Debate Now Among Justices”: The Associated Press provides this report.

The Tuscaloosa News today contains an article headlined “Too soon to tell how Supreme Court will lean, Breyer says.”

In earlier coverage, The AP provided an article headlined “Breyer: Supreme Court more relaxed under Chief Justice Roberts.”

And yesterday’s edition of The Crimson White reported that “Supreme Court justice to visit UA today.”

White House withdraws nomination of U.S. District Judge James H. Payne to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: The official announcement can be viewed at this link. My earlier coverage of this matter can be accessed here, here, and here.

Update: The Tulsa World reports that “White House withdraws federal appellate nomination.”

“Moussaoui Riveted by Sept. 11 Transcript”: The Associated Press provides this report.

Dispute involving sculpture with supposedly phallic-like hat fails to capture the U.S. Supreme Court‘s interest: The Topeka Capital-Journal today reports that “Supreme Court won’t hear Washburn statue case.”

My earlier coverage of the Tenth Circuit‘s ruling in this case can be accessed here.

“Roberts’ remarkable feat in military-recruiters case”: Tony Mauro has this news analysis online at the First Amendment Center.

“Crackdown on animal-rights activists; New Jersey guilty verdict puts focus on extremists’ tactics that Congress is trying to curb”: This article appears today in The Christian Science Monitor.

One more reason to go to federal court — for the free WiFi: The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia intends to install a wireless network for high speed internet access for use by attorneys, court reporters, and the legal community. Details are available here and here.

See a Sixth Circuit oral argument on television: This past Saturday’s broadcast of C-SPAN‘s “America & the Courts” program consisted of the Sixth Circuit‘s oral argument last month in Cincinnati Women’s Service v. Voinovich. According to C-SPAN, “This case challenges a 1998 law that requires women to meet with a doctor to discuss the procedure, risks and alternatives to abortion. Women under 18 seeking an abortion are required to get parental consent unless she can prove in juvenile court that she is mature enough to make the decision herself.” You can view the broadcast online by clicking here (RealPlayer required).

Unlike the Second and Ninth Circuits, which have allowed C-SPAN’s cameras into the courtroom, the Sixth Circuit apparently would not. As a result, the C-SPAN telecast consists of the audiotape of oral argument and slides identifying who is speaking at any given time. The panel consists of Sixth Circuit Judges R. Guy Cole, Jr., Julia Smith Gibbons, and John M. Rogers. For whatever reason, C-SPAN’s slide for the panel’s lone female jurist identifies her as “Julia Gibbons Smith.”

“Is Rumsfeld v. FAIR Bad For Free Speech?” That’s the subject of this week’s “Debate Club” feature at legalaffairs.org. Mark Moller and Angus Dwyer are the participants.

The “Opinio Juris” blog has moved: To a new address. Today’s posts of interest include “Thoughts on Rumsfeld v. FAIR” and “Most Popular Law Blogs.”

“Slate’s Jurisprudence: Sentencing Moussaoui.” This segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Dahlia Lithwick appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day.”

“Fastow: ‘I was being a hero for Enron.'” The Houston Chronicle provides this news update.

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Moussaoui’s Mother Watches Sentencing” and “Gay-Marriage Opponent Wants Judge Ousted.”

Massage therapy gone bad leads the Second Circuit to certify state insurance coverage issues to the Supreme Court of Connecticut: You can access the ruling, dated yesterday but posted online today, at this link.

“A wise decision on Solomon”: Phil Carter has this post today at “Intel Dump.” I remain indebted to Phil for asking me to become involved in the case on behalf of a law student veterans’ group that he belonged to at UCLA, leading to this amicus brief filed in the Third Circuit.

Phil has returned to active duty in Iraq after two weeks of R&R here in the USA. While he was home, Phil spoke about what he is doing in Iraq on NPR‘s “Day to Day” in a segment entitled “Training Troops to Police a Volatile Iraq” (RealPlayer required).

Seventh Circuit holds that Booker-related Paladino remand cannot occur in the absence of the original sentencing judge’s participation: Today’s ruling can be accessed here. Because the original sentencing judge recused himself after the Paladino remand was ordered, the criminal defendant will receive a complete resentencing before another federal district judge.

Eight Ninth Circuit judges dissent from denial of rehearing en banc in “state-created danger” federal civil rights case: Today’s order denying rehearing en banc, accompanied by a dissenting opinion, can be accessed here. And the ruling by a divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel is here.

“Ruling Lets the Military Recruit on Campuses; The Supreme Court rejects a free-speech claim by some law schools, which object to the Pentagon’s policy against gays”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

Today in The Boston Globe, Charlie Savage reports that “Court backs military on campuses; Schools can’t ban recruiters over gay policy.”

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Court upholds military recruiting law; Schools denying access could lose funding.”

In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin and John Hechinger report that “Justices Back Military Recruiting At Colleges Taking Federal Aid” (pass-through link).

The New York Sun reports that “High Court Opens Campuses to Military.” And an editorial is entitled “Law Professors Humiliated.”

The Chicago Tribune reports that “Court sides with military; Colleges accepting federal money must not bar recruiters.” And an editorial is entitled “Law schools fail high court test.”

In The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “High court lets military recruit at law schools.”

The Sacramento Bee reports that “Court rebuffs campuses on recruiter bans.”

The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger reports that “Law schools lose challenge of military-recruitment law.”

Patti Waldmeir of Financial Times reports that “US military recruiters win legal fight over university access.”

In The Houston Chronicle, Patty Reinert reports that “Justices deal a victory to military recruiters; Universities that use federal funds can’t bar them, despite objections to policies on gays.”

The Washington Times reports that “Military ban on campus rejected.”

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “Universities unlikely to choose principle over millions of dollars.”

The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts reports that “Recruiting ruling expected.”

Newsday reports that “Anti-gay policy irks schools.”

In The Hartford Courant, Lynne Tuohy reports that “Ruling May Affect Yale; Military Recruiters On Campus At Issue.”

The Yale Daily News reports that “Supreme Court rules against law schools; Justices say military recruiters must be allowed on campus.”

In The Harvard Crimson, Javier C. Hernandez has an article headlined “High Court: Schools Must Allow Recruiters; In 8-0 opinion, Supreme Court says universities cannot bar military from campus.”

The Columbia Spectator reports that “Supreme Court Upholds Solomon Amendment; Columbia Could Face Choice Between ROTC and Federal Funding.”

The Daily Princetonian reports that “Court backs military recruiters.”

The Stanford Daily reports that “Solomon survives suit.”

The Michigan Daily reports that “High court upholds Solomon; Campus reacts to decision preventing colleges from barring military recruiters.”

The UCLA Daily Bruin reports that “Court says no to schools.”

The University of Wisconsin-Madison Badger Herald reports that “Court upholds right for recruiters.” And Mac VerStandig has an op-ed entitled “Supreme Court affirms power of the purse.”

The Daily Cardinal reports that “Supreme Court rules recruiters allowed at UW.”

The University Daily Kansan reports that “KU must let recruiters on campus.”

The Minnesota Daily reports that “Ruling upholds recruiting law.”

Yesterday evening’s broadcast of the PBS program “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer” contained a segment entitled “Court Rules to Allow Recruiters on Campus” (transcript with links to video and audio).

The Washington Post today contains an editorial entitled “Now Repeal the Ban.”

The Cincinnati Post contains an editorial entitled “Recruiting on campus.”

And The Boston Herald contains an editorial entitled “Universities must play by the rules.”

“U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs Illinois judge recusal case”: The St. Louis Post-Dispatch today contains an article that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider whether an Illinois Supreme Court judge was wrong to rule in favor of State Farm Insurance Co. in a $1 billion case after accepting campaign donations from the company.”

“Re-Redistricting Redux: Those hoping the Supreme Court would boost Democratic chances to win a House majority in 2006 will likely be disappointed.” Michael McDonald has this essay online at The American Prospect.

On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition“: This morning’s broadcast contained segments entitled “Supreme Court Upholds Law Allowing Military Recruiters on Campus” (featuring Nina Totenberg); “Moussaoui Hearing Offers Two Views of Sept. 11 Role“; “Enron Trial an Opportunity for Fresh Thinking“; “Guantanamo Documents Open Window to Secret World“; and “Legal Profession Goes Global.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Ex-Enron CFO Says He Helped Mask Losses” and “AP Sues for Access to Lindh’s Petitions.”

“Chief Justice Roberts, Meet Obiter Dicta“: Today at National Review Online’s “Bench Memos” blog, Matthew J. Franck has a post that begins, “Early reports and commentary about the Rumsfeld v. FAIR ruling, upholding the Solomon Amendment, make a big deal out of some remarks Chief Justice Roberts made about the scope of Congress’s power to impose its open-to-recruiting mandate on universities.”

I don’t think that the ruling’s assertion that Congress could have directly required on-campus access to students for military recruiters on the same terms as others, without using the lever of federal funding and the threat of its withdrawal for noncompliance, can be dismissed as dicta. My further thoughts about the significance of that aspect of the ruling can be found in the final paragraphs of this report published at Inside Higher Ed and in this post of mine from yesterday.

“British woman loses European frozen embryo case”: Reuters provides this report.

BBC News provides reports headlined “Woman loses frozen embryos fight; A woman left infertile after cancer treatment cannot use her frozen embryos to have a baby, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled” and “‘I’m determined to have my baby’; Natallie Evans, left infertile after cancer treatment, has said she is determined to use frozen embryos to have her own child.”

Bloomberg News reports that “U.K. Woman Can’t Use Frozen Embryos, Human Rights Court Says.”

The Associated Press reports that “Woman Needs Consent to Use Frozen Embryos.”

The Times of London provides a news update headlined “Woman appeals to ex-fiance after losing embryo ruling.”

The Sun (UK) provides an update headlined “Embryo woman to appeal.”

And The Mirror (UK) reports that “Embryo Brit Loses Legal Battle.”

Today’s ruling of the European Court of Human Rights can be accessed at this link.

“Governor signs abortion ban; Knowing official change will take years, governor creates a state fund for donations”: This article appears today in The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. In addition, the newspaper contains articles headlined “Bill faces tough road in courts” and “New law spurs celebration, condemnation; Abortion foes thank God; advocates for choice blame outsiders.”

Today’s edition of The Rapid City Journal contains articles headlined “Abortion law fight begins” and “Abortion opponents, supporters speak out.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Abortion Ban Puts Strategies in Doubt; South Dakota’s test of Roe vs. Wade has both sides wondering if they’ve moved too fast.”

USA Today contains articles headlined “Abortion battle gains new intensity with ban in S.D.; Governor says aim is reversing ‘Roe’” and “Some abortion foes balk at S.D. law; Republicans have doubts on strategy.”

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that “Law unlikely to ever take effect, experts say.”

And The Chicago Tribune contains an editorial entitled “South Dakota’s abortion error.”

“Today, witness Fastow becomes the main event”: Mary Flood has this article today in The Houston Chronicle, which also reports that “Partnerships likely key to Fastow’s testimony; Former CFO expected to detail the no-risk aspects of the companies.”

And today’s edition of USA Today contains articles headlined “Star witness Fastow to take stage today; Former Enron CFO has kept silent for past 4 years” and “Lawyer for Scrushy sees Skilling, Lay as ‘doomed’; Watkins says defense should have put government on trial.”

“Students win suit over UC fee hikes; Judge orders university to pay $33.8 million for contract breach”: This article appears today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

The Oakland Tribune today contains an article headlined “UC ordered to refund millions; Judge: University broke contract with students when it raised fees after bills went out; appeal is likely.”

And The Los Angeles Times reports that “Judge Orders UC to Repay Fee Increases; The hikes broke vows not to boost costs, jurist finds; The $33.8-million refund is deferred pending the university’s appeal of the ruling.”

“Ruling Could Reopen Many Cases; Court says registering adults as offenders for having oral sex with older teens is unfair because penalty doesn’t apply to intercourse”: Maura Dolan has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

And in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Man’s sex offender status struck down; He had consensual oral sex with teen.”

“Accuser’s parents lash out; Prosecution assailed over tape-rape case”: The Chicago Tribune contains this article today.

And The Chicago Sun-Times reports today that “Girl’s parents wanted plea deal.”

“Wal-Mart Parodist Sues to Sell Products; The creator of slogans bashing the retailer says it’s a free-speech issue; The company calls it a trademark violation”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post: The newspaper contains an article headlined “Sandra Day O’Connor, Well Judged; Women’s Group Honors Pioneering High Court Justice.”

And in other news, “Single Trial to Cover 6 Md. Sniper Slayings.”