“Minnesota high court chief justice to step down; he spent 10 years on the bench, two in top spot”: This article appears today in The Minneapolis Star Tribune.

“Florida lawyer wins ruling in support dispute”: Today in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Bill Rankin has an article that begins, “Successful Florida lawyer Willie Gary cannot be held in contempt over a child-support dispute involving twins he fathered with an Atlanta woman, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled Monday.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia at this link.

“Appeals court upholds $82.6 million award to S.D. woman paralyzed in SUV rollover”: The San Diego Union-Tribune provides a news update that begins, “An appeals court ruling upholding the $82.6 million in damages awarded to a San Diego woman paralyzed in a Ford Explorer rollover accident will be appealed to the California Supreme Court, an attorney said Tuesday.”

My earlier coverage of the ruling appears at this link.

“Rules set for U.S. judicial misconduct complaints”: James Vicini of Reuters provides this report.

“Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg Advocates Women Pursuing Law”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Bulletin.

“Right to bear arms at heart of high court case”: James Vicini of Reuters provides this report.

“Complaint Questions McCain Citizenship”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “John McCain has been called an American hero. But is he a natural born citizen? A federal judge in California has been asked to determine if the Republican presidential candidate, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, meets the legal test to qualify for the nation’s highest office.”

I have uploaded at this link a copy of the complaint initiating suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

“Court suspends fines for reporter”: USA Today provides a news update that begins, “A federal appeals court on Tuesday temporarily blocked a lower court order that would have required a former USA TODAY reporter to pay thousands of dollars in fines for failing to identify sources.”

And Pete Yost of The Associated Press reports that “Court Blocks Fines Against Reporter.”

Earlier today, attorneys for plaintiff Steven J. Hatfill, M.D. filed this opposition to the stay motion.

Defendant charged with importing and distributing more than 500 grams of cocaine now has new found respect for the Bible: Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued a decision overturning, due to double jeopardy, the defendant’s conviction on those charges. The conviction was reached at a retrial after the federal district court ordered a new trial because a juror during the deliberations at the first trial had a Bible in the jury room and was urging other jurors to consider what the Bible says in deciding what verdict to render.

Today’s First Circuit ruling holds that the district court granted a new trial too quickly and thus failed to establish that a new trial was a manifest necessity. As a result, jeopardy attached after the first trial, and today’s ruling sets aside the defendant’s conviction at the second trial and orders the dismissal of the indictment.

“Rulings on Judge Complaints to Be Public”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Federal judges agreed Tuesday to grant the public more access to cases in which judges are disciplined by their colleagues. Final orders on complaints about judges will be posted on appeals court Web sites and, in most cases, judges will be named if they have been sanctioned.”

“The Legality of Prostitution”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Emily Bazelon appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Day to Day.”

The perils of hoarding toll-free vanity telephone numbers: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued this ruling today.

“Judicial Conference OKs New Rules on Complaints”: At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post that begins, “The Judicial Conference today unanimously adopted the first-ever binding procedures for handling judicial misconduct complaints.”

“Wecht trial: Defense rests without calling any witnesses.” The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette provides this news update.

And The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review provides a news update headlined “Testimony abruptly ends in Wecht trial.”

Closing arguments are scheduled to occur on Monday of next week.

“Craig lawyers dispute ‘prehensile stare'”: The Minneapolis Star Tribune provides a news update that begins, “In a bid to get Sen. Larry Craig’s disorderly conduct conviction overturned, defense lawyers filed a brief Tuesday, taking issue with the prosecution’s ‘exaggerating flourishes,’ including the use of term ‘prehensile stare’ to describe the senator’s peering into the men’s room stall at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Sen. Craig’s Lawyers Appeal in Sex Case.”

In earlier related coverage, The St. Paul Pioneer Press reported last Saturday that “Man arrested in airport sex sting goes to trial, is acquitted; Defendant’s argument — police entrapment — is the same as senator’s.” And late last month, Pioneer Press columnist Ruben Rosario had an op-ed entitled “Sen. Craig’s real crime? Forcing us to spend money on legal process.”

“Kansas funeral picketing law struck down”: The Kansas City Star provides a news update that begins, “The Kansas Supreme Court today declared the state’s funeral picketing ban invalid, citing legislative legal maneuvering as the reason. The decision nullifies the law passed by the Legislature last year — and not yet implemented — designed to rein in a Topeka church that protests the funerals of fallen soldiers and others across the country.”

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

“The question presented to the en banc court is whether an officer who was denied consent to search a shared residence by one co-tenant may rely upon consent given by a different co-tenant as grounds for a warrantless search of the shared residence.” Today, by a vote of 8-3, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit answers that question in the affirmative. You can access today’s ruling at this link.

Back in August 2006, a three-judge Eighth Circuit panel divided 2-1 in holding that the consent received from the second co-tenant did not override the first co-tenant’s refusal of consent. Here’s the text of my post from August 25, 2006:

“May we see your photos please?” Fans of the Late Show with David Letterman are likely familiar with that recurring feature. Today, in an opinion you can access here, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit addresses whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this year in Georgia v. Randolph applies to a search of a home computer’s files for child pornography.

In the case decided today, the majority holds that where a husband is arrested at work and denies consent to search his home computer, the wife who’s at home with the computer lacks the ability to override the husband’s refusal by consenting to the search. The dissenting opinion argues that the Randolph case ought not be applied under the circumstances and that the effect of today’s ruling will discourage law enforcement officers “in seeking consent, to bypass the suspect lest the suspect refuse consent, and instead seek only the consent of an authorized co-occupant.”

You can access the original three-judge panel’s ruling at this link.

In today’s mail: The book “Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk,” by James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer.

Happy birthday to Justice Antonin Scalia: According to the popular “Today in History” feature from The Associated Press, today Justice Scalia turns 72 years old.

“House Steers Its Own Path on Wiretaps”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an article that begins, “In continued defiance of the White House, House Democratic leaders are readying a proposal that would reject giving legal protection to the phone companies that helped in the National Security Agency’s program of wiretapping without warrants after the Sept. 11 attacks, Congressional officials said Monday.”

And The Wall Street Journal provides a news update headlined “House Democrats Defy White House On Spy Program.”

“Loyalty oaths fail the test of democracy; Such requirements are an anachronism from the McCarthy era”: Law Professor Geoffrey R. Stone has this op-ed today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Bush’s tortured veto: Congress should enhance the truth by overriding President Bush’s shameful veto of a ban on torture.” The Los Angeles Times contains this editorial today.

“House sues administration for documents, testimony; The suit, seeking information on dismissals of U.S. attorneys, apparently is unprecedented”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

And today in The New York Times, Neil A. Lewis reports that “Panel Asks Judge to Rule in Contempt Case.”

“Anthrax case judge orders ex-reporter to reveal sources or pay fines; Levies would escalate fast, and no one would be permitted to help her pay them”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

And USA Today reports today that “News media push for stay of fines in anthrax case.”

“The President’s Lawyers: Those who interpret the law for the administration should be more accountable for their decisions.” The Washington Post today contains an editorial that begins, “Since its creation in the early 20th century, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has been considered the legal conscience of the executive branch, rendering judgments to presidents and executive agencies about what the law allows.”

Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro reports that “In Series of Videos, Supreme Court Justices Make Their Case; Justices’ candid observations and pet peeves spill forth in legal writing guru Bryan Garner’s video interviews.” You can view the videos via this link. My related post from yesterday can be accessed here.

And in other news, “New Rules to Combat Judicial Misconduct; Rules would require chief judges to explain reason for dismissing complaints.”

“Despite Remand, Ford Motor’s Loss Stands at $82.6 Million; Ruling upheld even after U.S. Supreme Court disallowed punitives for harm to third parties in ‘Philip Morris'”: law.com provides this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “Court Reiterates $82.6M Award for Woman.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, Division One, in Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co. at this link.

“Around the Country, High Courts Follow California’s Lead”: Today’s installment of Adam Liptak’s “Sidebar” column begins, “The California Supreme Court is the most influential state court in the nation. That’s not just talk. The numbers back it up.” The numbers in question appear in this study.

“NSA’s Domestic Spying Grows As Agency Sweeps Up Data; Terror Fight Blurs Line Over Domain; Tracking Email”: This front page article appeared yesterday in The Wall Street Journal.

“The Oregon Supreme Court’s Recent Decision on Punitive Damages: Why It Took the Wrong Approach.” Anthony J. Sebok has this essay online today at FindLaw.