“Judicial Recusals & Free Speech Cases”: Yesterday’s broadcast of C-SPAN’s “America & the Courts” program is described on that network’s web site as follows:

Attorneys who argued in the case Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company spoke with reporters on the oral arguments given before the Supreme Court. Also, oral arguments in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case, Nurre v. Whitehead. The case involves First Amendment right to free speech for students.

You can view the broadcast online, on-demand by clicking here.

“Ky. Religious Funding Suit Heads To Appeals Court”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Attorneys in a case involving a Kentucky Baptist children’s program will appear before a federal appeals court this week to argue about the role of government funding for faith-based institutions.”

The case will be argued on Wednesday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

“Web Directory Of Attorneys Upsets D.C. Bar”: This article will appear Monday in The Washington Post.

“Terror-War Fallout Lingers Over Bush Lawyers”: Charlie Savage and Scott Shane will have this article Monday in The New York Times.

“Are crosses religious symbols? Court to hear case.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A Denver federal appellate court will hear arguments Monday on the religiousness of 12-foot-high crosses used to honor deceased Utah troopers along state highways. A federal judge in Salt Lake City in 2007 ruled that the crosses are not an illegal public endorsement of religion and are used to communicate a secular message — that a patrolman died or was mortally wounded at a particular location.”

The case will be argued tomorrow before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

You can access the trial court’s ruling at this link.

“State high court needs conflict of interest rules; Causes for stepping aside should be clearly defined”: Friday’s edition of The Detroit News contained an editorial that begins, “The Michigan Supreme Court Thursday began the process of creating formal rules for when justices should step aside from hearing cases. The court needs to clearly define the kinds of conflicts that should cause jurists to remove themselves.”

“In balancing the budget, first things first”: Today in The St. Paul Pioneer Press, Chief Justice Eric J. Magnuson of the Supreme Court of Minnesota has an op-ed that begins, “As the governor and legislative leaders struggle to address the state’s projected deficit, they will have to set priorities and make difficult choices. One choice they should not make is to further diminish an already underfunded justice system with additional budget cuts.”

“Minn. Senate race leaves voters tired of law drama”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Court nomination fights — enough! It’s time to take the politics out of seating judges on federal courts.” Dahlia Lithwick has this op-ed today in The Los Angeles Times.