In Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times: Adam Liptak will have an article headlined “New Scrutiny for Law on Detaining Witnesses.”

In other news, “In the Jungle, the Unjust Jungle, a Small Victory.”

And the newspaper will contain an editorial entitled “Patently Ridiculous.”

Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro reports that “Supreme Court Tackles Patentability of Scientific Phenomena.”

And in news from California, “In a First, Casino Suit Ordered to Arbitration; Attorneys joust over sovereign immunity.”

“Cos. May Find Relief After Quattrone Case”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“US Supreme Court limits class-action suits”: Patti Waldmeir of Financial Times provides this news update.

“Public-Interest Groups File Suit over Budget Bill”: This segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered.”

“Mini-Moore goes to war”: This editorial appears today in The Birmingham News.

“High court rejects Tucker’s tax case”: The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette today contains an article that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned down former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker’s request to reverse his guilty plea in a tax-evasion case, tying up the last loose end of the Clinton-era Whitewater investigation.”

Public Citizen challenges as unconstitutional next month’s federal court filing fee increases: The complaint filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia can be accessed here. The organization today also issued a press release titled “Recently Passed Law Cutting Medicare, Student Loan Spending Is Invalid, Public Citizen Tells Federal Court; Version of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 Passed by Senate and Signed by President Was Different From House Version.”

“The entrapments of unwanted pregnancies”: Yesterday in The Boston Globe, Cathy Young had an op-ed that begins, “With challenges to legal abortion in the headlines, a debate over another kind of reproductive rights has been making news as well.” The same essay is also freely available online here at Reason.

“Court Considers Whistleblower Lawsuits”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Complaint challenges moment of silence in schools; Perry aide says state law doesn’t force students to pray”: This article appeared earlier this month in The Dallas Morning News.

“Consulting Foreign Law”: At “The Faculty Blog” of the University of Chicago Law School, Law Professor Cass R. Sunstein has a post that begins, “Justice Ginsburg recently gave a speech in which she offered a qualified defense of the practice of consulting foreign law.”

“Justices Tackle Question of Patents on Scientific Phenomenon; Case could help resolve a festering debate whether a basic scientific phenomenon can be patented”: law.com’s Tony Mauro provides this news update.

“Petroglyphs Theft Conviction Overturned”: The Associated Press provides this report. My earlier coverage is here.

“Auditors say papers tell of efforts to hide accounting tricks; Pair deny seeing questionable data until just recently”: This article appears today in The Houston Chronicle.

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

And The Sacramento Bee today contains a front page article headlined “Moussaoui alerts ignored, agent says.” Earlier today, I collected additional press coverage here.

“Prosecutors Drop Charges Against Lafave”: The Tampa Tribune provides a news update that begins, “Hours after an Ocala judge rejected a plea deal that would have given house arrest to 25-year-old Debra Lafave, prosecutors there dropped charges against her.”

A news update from The St. Petersburg Times can be accessed here.

The Associated Press reports that “Charges Dropped in Student Sex Case.”

And in earlier coverage, The Ocala Star-Banner provides a news update headlined “Judge rejects no-jail plea deal for Lafave.”

“Former Ala. Justice Says He Won’t Bolt GOP”: The AP provides a report that begins, “The former Alabama Supreme Court justice who was ousted for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument from court property denied rumors Tuesday that he would switch parties in his race for governor.”

“Skakel to Appeal to Supreme Court”: The Associated Press provides this report.

Ninth Circuit reverses convictions arising from the theft of several Native American petroglyphs that had been removed from an unmarked site on the side of a mountain in northwest Reno: Today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit can be accessed here. The opinion concludes, “Because the government introduced no evidence other than ‘archaeological value’ to prove that Ligon and Mizell stole something of ‘value’ belonging to the government in violation of § 641, the district court should have granted their motions for acquittal.”

The Associated Press has previously provided extensive coverage of this matter, including articles headlined “Two indicted in theft of petroglyphs“; “Accusations fly in stolen petroglyph caper in Reno“; “Lawyers for men accused of petroglyph theft blame Forest Service“; “Experts clash over stolen petroglyphs in U.S. court in Reno“; “Reno trial spurs debate over best way to protect native artifacts“; “No verdict yet in case of alleged petroglyph thefts in Nevada“; and “U.S. judge issues prison terms for theft of petroglyphs in Nevada.”

“This case involves a dispute over the patent rights to a cosmetic skin-care product used to remove ‘keratotic plugs’–commonly known as blackheads–from facial skin.” A patent-law dispute between products used to keep skin pores clean and clear today resulted in a three-judge panel decision consisting of three different opinions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Circuit Judge Pauline Newman‘s opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part states that “the panel majority has misunderstood the chemistry, in holding that neutralization of 14.5% of the maleic acid groups means that the totality is a salt and not an acid. This flawed science led to an incorrect conclusion of law.” Is the determination of whether a thing is a salt or an acid a question of law, or a question of fact?

Seventh Circuit affirms lawyer’s federal conviction for trading with the enemy (which in this case was Cuba, not the lawyer’s ex-wife): The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit today issued an opinion by Circuit Judge Terence T. Evans that begins:

Divorce rates are disturbingly high. Sometimes, marital splits get nasty when an ex-spouse decides to dish out a little dose of discomfort to his or her former partner. And as far as dishing out discomfort is concerned, the havoc visited on Chicago lawyer Richard Connors by his ex-wife would win a gold medal for creativity. With substantial assistance from his ex, Connors stands convicted in federal court of (among other things) violating a law we seldom encounter, the Trading with the Enemy Act.

Cuban cigars are at the root of the lawyer’s conviction.

“Public records ruling could cost Akron $860,000; Ohio Supreme Court says city should pay $1,000 for each record destroyed in overtime claims case”: The Akron Beacon Journal contains this article today.

And The Canton Repository reports today that “Akron liable for records destruction.”

My earlier coverage is here.

“Law faculty rates high in diversity; Yale ranks fifth among top schools in percentage of full-time black faculty”: This article appears today in The Yale Daily News.

In today’s mail: The book “Trapped: When Acting Ethically Is Against the Law,” by John Hasnas.

“Man Alive: Is The New York Times still pro-choice? You wouldn’t know it from reading the op-ed page.” Garance Franke-Ruta has this essay online at The American Prospect.

“Webcasts open vital link for ailing SJC jurist; Sosman views arguments online”: The Boston Globe today contains an article that begins, “When the Supreme Judicial Court began broadcasting oral arguments on the Internet last May, proponents predicted that the webcasts would be must-see viewing for appellate lawyers, law students, and court buffs with a taste for something besides the latest sensational murder trial. It turns out that the webcasts have also proved vital to helping an ailing justice continue her duties.”

“Justices hear King County 911 case; Can emergency calls be used as evidence?” The Seattle Post-Intelligencer contains this article today.

And The Las Vegas Review-Journal today contains an editorial entitled “The right to face one’s accuser: High court hears Sixth Amendment case.”

“Suspected killer ‘B-Stupid’ arrested; The alleged gang leader was wanted in Houston and New Orleans”: This article appears today in The Houston Chronicle.

And The Times-Picayune reports today that “Police capture city’s No. 1 suspect; ‘B Stupid’ wanted in string of killings.”

Meanwhile, in unrelated news, The T-P also reports today that “Rapper released on house arrest; He made bail, faces retrial on club killing.” This individual formerly went by the name C-Murder.

“Lafave deal rejected; A Marion County judge Tuesday said accepting the plea for Debra Lafave, the teacher accused of having sex with a 14-year-old, would erode the public’s confidence in schools”: The St. Petersburg Times provides this news update.

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

“Conviction Overturned for Banking Star Quattrone”: This segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition.”

“Court Blocks Suit Claiming Investment Fraud”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The Supreme Court made it harder Tuesday for investors to file class-action lawsuits claiming that companies misled them.”

Thanks to everyone who emailed in response to my post titled “Who’s on the panel?” from earlier this morning: It appears that only the Fourth Circuit, the Seventh Circuit, and the Federal Circuit require counsel to wait until the day of oral argument to learn which three judges have been assigned to an appeal.

In the D.C. Circuit, I am reliably advised, counsel learns which three judges will hear an appeal before the case is even briefed.

At this point, I’d be particularly interested in hearing from readers in connection with the other three questions raised in my earlier post: (1) are there any lawyers who would prefer not to learn which three judges are hearing argument in a case before the date of argument arrives, and if so why?; (2) what reasons argue in favor of, or against, having a nationwide rule requiring the composition of oral argument panels to be disclosed at least one week before oral argument?; and (3) why was the Federal Circuit’s experiment with disclosure deemed a failure by that court’s judges?

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court opinions in argued cases: The Court today issued two opinions in argued cases. At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court limits securities lawsuits.”

The Court’s first ruling issued today came in the case of United States v. Grubbs, No. 04-1414. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. You can access the syllabus here; Justice Scalia’s opinion here; Justice David H. Souter’s opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment here; and the oral argument transcript here.

The Court’s second ruling issued today came in the case of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, No. 04-1371. Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. You can access the syllabus here; Justice Stevens’ opinion here; and the oral argument transcript here.

Who’s on the panel? In connection with an upcoming installment of my weekly “On Appeal” column for law.com, I would like to determine which of the U.S. Courts of Appeals disclose before the date of oral argument the names of the judges who have been assigned to hear and decide cases that are being orally argued.

In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the federal appellate court before which I appear most frequently, the court identifies to counsel approximately one week before the date of oral argument which three judges have been assigned to decide the case.

For the remaining ten regional federal appellate courts, and also for the D.C. and Federal Circuits, I would be most appreciative if readers would send me emails stating whether those courts disclose, in advance of the date of oral argument, which three judges have been assigned to hear oral argument of a case.

I would also be quite interested to hear from any attorneys or judges who take the position that, if they were going to argue a case before the as-of-yet hypothetical U.S. Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Circuit, they would not want to know in advance of the date of oral argument which three judges had been assigned to the case.

With respect to the Federal Circuit, I’d be very interested in learning more about that court’s recent “failed” experiment with disclosing the identity of oral argument panels in advance of the oral argument date. Was the experiment in fact deemed unsuccessful because one or more of that court’s judges was disappointed that cases were settling between the time that the identity of oral argument panels was disclosed and the date for argument? Is settlement based on which judges are assigned to decide an appeal ever a bad thing, and couldn’t such settlements occur just as readily immediately after oral argument?

Finally on this subject, do any readers see a need or desire for a uniform rule (say a brand new Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure) requiring disclosure at least one week in advance of oral argument of the identity of the three judges assigned to decide an appeal? Even if some advocates might use the information to attempt to ingratiate themselves with the panel by citing the judges’ earlier pronouncements on the law at oral argument (which Seventh Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook, for one, tends to find quite infuriating), advance disclosure also has certain unquestionably beneficial effects, such as allowing the parties and their lawyers to consider whether any grounds for recusal exist that the judges on the panel did not know of or may have overlooked.

Readers are invited to email their information and views on these topics to me at appellateblog@hotmail.com.