“We’re on a Mission From God: Is the Ten Commandments case turning Scalia into a devotee of natural law?” Michael McGough of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Springfield lawyers won sentence limits”: The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts today contains an article that begins, “Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision restricting federal judges’ sentencing powers provides a safeguard for defendants, said Linda J. Thompson, a Springfield lawyer, who argued the case before the nation’s highest court.”

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in the news: The Stanford Daily today contains an article headlined “Cap and Gown turns 100.”

“U.S. Quits Agreement On Access To Diplomats”: In Thursday’s edition of The Washington Post, Charles Lane will have a front page article that begins, “The Bush administration has decided to pull out of an international agreement that opponents of the death penalty have used to fight the sentences of foreigners on death row in the United States, officials said yesterday.”

And online at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Are the states ‘puppets of a ventriloquist President’?”

“Trying a New Tack in Bid to Split 9th Circuit”: law.com provides this report.

“Judge Tries to Regain Balance in a Family Shaken by Killings”: This lengthy article will appear Thursday in The New York Times.

And Thursday’s issue of The Guardian (UK) reports that “Racist’s mother had cryptic note.”

“U.S. Says It Has Withdrawn From World Judicial Body”: In Thursday’s edition of The New York Times, Adam Liptak will have an article that begins, “Prompted by an international tribunal’s decision last year ordering new hearings for 51 Mexicans on death rows in the United States, the State Department said yesterday that the United States had withdrawn from the protocol that gave the tribunal jurisdiction to hear such disputes.”

“A 3rd shell casing turns up at federal judge’s home”: This article will appear Thursday in The Chicago Tribune.

“Beyond ‘Strange New Respect’: The Stevens-Ginsburg billet-doux to Justice Kennedy.” Law Professor David M. Wagner, author of the blog “Ninomania,” has this essay in the March 14, 2005 issue of The Weekly Standard.

“The power and the glory: In the past 30 years, the United States Supreme Court has made and unmade presidents — and shaped the fabric of American society; Now, with two rare vacancies in its ranks, a battle for the nation’s soul is under way.” This article appears in Thursday’s edition of The Independent (UK).

“GOP ponders ‘nuclear option’ to fill judgeships; Limiting filibusters by Democrats could tie the Senate in knots, some contend”: The Sacramento Bee contains this article today.

“Media giants join forces to fight Ontario ruling; Internet libel case threatens free speech, coalition says as appeal hearing opens”: This article appears today in The Toronto Globe and Mail.

The Toronto Star yesterday reported that “Libel case chills world’s papers; Ontario lawsuit cites access to website; Media group supports Washington Post.”

CBC News reports that “Global media giants fear chill from Toronto web libel suit.”

And Agence France-Presse reports that “Media firms fear impact of Internet libel claim.”

Ninth Circuit en banc trivia: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit this week has issued three en banc rulings (see here, here, and here) and has voted to take another case en banc (here).

In addition, as I previously noted here, last week legislation was introduced in the U.S. Congress that if approved would require the Ninth Circuit to cease using eleven-judge panels to decide en banc cases and instead involve all twenty-plus active judges in hearing and deciding cases en banc.

The combination of these developments causes my mind to ponder Ninth Circuit en banc-related trivia. For example, in the Ninth Circuit, can one eleven-judge en banc panel overrule another eleven-judge en banc panel? What if the first eleven-judge panel rules by a margin of 6-5, but the second panel wishes to reach the opposite result by a margin of 7-4? And is the answer to this question affected by the fact that all non-recused active judges participate in the vote on whether to take a case en banc?

If anyone wishes to share thoughts regarding or, better yet, answers to these questions, please feel free to send them along via email.

“Gay-marriage fight in state high court”: This article appears today in The Seattle Times.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that “Court hears arguments on same-sex marriage.”

And The Olympian today contains articles headlined “Gay marriage drive gets its day in court; Demonstrators pack Capitol Campus“; “Many at rally invoke God in opposition to change“; and “Gay marriage backers see a question of rights.”

“No clemency for cross; Council rejects transfer of monument, property”: The San Diego Union-Tribune today contains an article that begins, “The Mount Soledad cross must go, the San Diego City Council said yesterday. The 16-year saga of whether the cross would stay on public land in La Jolla came to an emotional conclusion last night as the council voted 5-3 to reject a last-ditch effort to keep it in place.”

“Net buzzing on bloggers’ status; First Amendment issues become hot topic in chat rooms”: This article appears today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

And The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Apple’s Lawsuits to Guard Its Secrets Leave Mac Faithful With Bitter Taste; The firm is targeting websites that publish confidential details of unreleased products.”

“Paramedics describe ‘overwhelming’ scene in truck trailer; At driver’s trial, survivor testifies to immigrants screamed for help in hot trailer”: The Houston Chronicle provides this news update.

Better late than never? The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports today that “Sen. Heinz’s will to be made public.” And The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports today that “Some Heinz records unsealed.”

The Post-Gazette article notes that a total of five newspapers had originally asked the court to unseal these records, yet all but The Post-Gazette and Tribune-Review “lost interest after Sen. John Kerry lost his bid to be president.”

“Lefkow slayings divide white supremacists; Some laud killings, but others say violence hurts cause”: MSNBC provides this report.

Reuters reports that “Leaderless U.S. Hate Groups Seen as Violent Threat.”

And today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day” contained a segment entitled “The Status of the U.S. White Supremacist Movement” (RealPlayer required).

“Sperm Donor’s Intimacy With Mother Does Not Make Him Father”: Metropolitan News-Enterprise provides this article reporting on last Thursday’s ruling of the California Court of Appeal for the Second District, Division Four. With any luck, this will be not only the second (click here for the first) but also the final sperm-related appellate litigation post of the day.

“The partial dissent claims that our ‘discussion about dicta is dicta.'” Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued an eleven-judge en banc ruling in which the panel splits 6-5 over what constitutes dicta.

Immigration law making adopted children subject to removal from the United States under circumstances where biological children would not be subject to removal is not unconstitutional: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued this ruling today.

“Court allows appeal of Barnes move to be heard”: The Philadelphia Inquirer provides this news update on the subject that I posted about earlier here.

Acceptance of federal funds as a waiver of a State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit today posted online its eagerly awaited en banc ruling in Pace vs. Bogalusa City School Board. The court, by a vote of 8-6, held that the State of Louisiana, by accepting federal education funds from 1996 to 1998, validly waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit for violations of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act statute. As the closely divided nature of the court’s ruling indicates, the correct answer to the question presented is far from clear.

Back in March 2003, a three-judge Fifth Circuit panel issued a decision in the case reaching the opposite result, after which rehearing en banc was granted.

“Art Exhibit to Move to Philadelphia as Tempers Flare”: Reuters today offers a lengthy article that begins, “It’s either a last-ditch rescue of a remarkable art collection or an irreparable blow to one of the world’s most unique exhibits. Either way, scarcely anyone outside the art world may have heard of the Barnes Foundation, but a battle over its fate has provoked outrage and left bitterness in its wake.”

Today’s issue of The Cornell Daily Sun offers much Solomon Amendment-related commentary: Jamie Weinstein has an essay entitled “Protesting the Solomon Protesters.”

Brian Holmes has an essay entitled “Don’t Forget Don’t Pursue.”

And Mark J. Polking has a letter to the editor that appears under the heading “Case against Solomon Amendment hypocritical.”

“Lawyer Says Supremacist’s Mother Brought ‘Cryptic’ Message”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

Relatedly, the blog “Underneath Their Robes” features a new post titled “Condolences to Judge Joan Lefkow.”

Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth: Online at FindLaw today, Sherry F. Colb has an essay entitled “When Oral Sex Results in a Pregnancy: Can Men Ever Escape Paternity Obligations?”

The ruling on which the essay is based issued late last month while I was away on vacation, and thus I’ve been biding my time for an opportunity to link to relevant news coverage.

The Chicago Tribune reported that “Deceptive conception alleged by dad’s suit; Plaintiff says woman saved his semen.”

The Daily Southtown of Tinley Park, Illinois reported that “Sperm theft civil lawsuit reinstated; Court: Woman can be held liable after she inseminated herself after a tryst.”

The New York Daily News reported that “Sperm was gift, sez court.”

And The Associated Press reported that “Court rules man can sue woman for distress over sperm theft.”

I have been unable to locate a copy of last month’s ruling online at the web site of the Appellate Court of Illinois. If anyone else has had better luck finding the decision online, or has access to an electronic copy of the ruling, I’d much appreciate receiving the link or the decision itself via email.

“Williams’ recruiter wanted a clear conscience; Testifying for the prosecution, smuggler says he couldn’t prevent 19 migrant deaths”: This article appears today in The Houston Chronicle.

The San Antonio Express-News reports today that “Truck driver called cruelest of cruel.”

And The Los Angeles Times reports that “Driver Said to Be ‘Most Cruel’ in Smuggling Attempt; Prosecution says Tyrone Williams let 19 die in his trailer; The defense says he’s being singled out.”

“Doctors, patients grapple with specifics of privacy rule”: Yesterday’s issue of The Philadelphia Inquirer contained this article reporting on an appeal being argued today before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Development of note in appeal challenging decision authorizing the relocation of The Barnes Foundation to Philadelphia: Readers may recall that I am serving as counsel for appellant in an appeal pending before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in which my client is challenging a ruling of the Orphans’ Court of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania that authorizes The Barnes Foundation to relocate from Merion to Philadelphia. Some early press coverage of the appeal can be accessed here (The Philadelphia Inquirer) and here (The Associated Press).

In late January, The Foundation asked the Superior Court to quash or dismiss the appeal, before the appeal was briefed and argued on the merits, based on an asserted lack of appellate jurisdiction. The Foundation’s application to quash or dismiss can be accessed here, my client’s response in opposition here, and The Foundation’s reply here.

Yesterday, the Superior Court entered an order denying the application to quash or dismiss the appeal before briefing and oral argument on the merits. Apparently this development will now be reported on by The Philadelphia Inquirer and KYW Newsradio 1060.

“Bush Orders Hearings for Mexicans on Death Row; The action, triggered by a World Court ruling, may pit the president against state officials”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

The Chicago Tribune reports today that “U.S. orders reviews for Mexican inmates; Death Row prisoners claim rights violated.”

The Houston Chronicle contains articles headlined “Bush orders hearings for Mexican nationals; The directive in death row cases sparks challenge from Texas officials” and “Mexico cheers U.S. decision on Texas inmates; Mexican citizens’ death sentences will be reviewed.”

In The Dallas Morning News, Allen Pusey reports that “Mexico welcomes death-row order; Perry aides say Bush administration brief being reviewed.”

And The Austin American-Statesman contains an article headlined “New hearings for 51 condemned Mexican nationals; Bush administration agrees to follow world court ruling on rights of foreign suspects.”

“Report: Hale Wanted Coded Message Passed.” The Associated Press provides this report from Chicago.

“Justice Kennedy’s Mind: Where the Constitution resides.” Jonah Goldberg has this essay today at National Review Online.

“Ex-GOP aide: Democrats derailed hiring; Staffer in spying case says political threats hurt prospects at firm.” The Boston Globe today contains an article that begins, “A former top Republican Senate staff member who resigned under pressure last year for spying on his Democratic staff colleagues is now accusing them of threatening partners at a law firm that was considering hiring him — including the firm’s chairman, a prominent Boston attorney — in order to scuttle his job offer.”