“Bills would take Texas’ illegal sodomy ban off books; Years after Supreme Court rejected law, little momentum to delete it”: The Austin American-Statesman has this news update.

“Nevada Punitive Damages Case Goes To Supreme Court”: The “Drug and Device Law” blog has posted a copy of the petition for writ of certiorari filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in Wyeth LLC v. Scofield.

“Legal experts: Ruling benefits child porn victims.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Victims of child pornography around the country could have an easier time getting restitution from those convicted of possessing such images, according to a federal appeals court ruling this week in a Texas case. But legal experts say the issue now may have to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court because courts throughout the United States are split on how to award such compensation.”

In today’s mail: Today’s mail included my certificate (suitable for framing) of admission to the bar of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Consequently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has won the distinction of being the final federal circuit court of appeals to which I am not admitted.

Perhaps fittingly, the second runner-up was the Second Circuit, where I gained admission earlier this year and where the appeal on which I was working resolved itself before adjudication or briefing by means of a voluntary dismissal filed yesterday.

“We conclude it was not clearly established in 2002 that the strip search of a person being introduced into a detention facility violated the Fourth Amendment.” So holds the majority on a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a decision issued today.

Circuit Judge Judith W. Rogers dissented, writing that “this is the first time a circuit court of appeals has suggested that the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution against unreasonable searches do not extend to an individual arrested for a non-violent minor offense who is awaiting arraignment apart from the general population of detainees, and is subjected to a strip search in the absence of reasonable suspicion he is hiding contraband or weapons.”

“Steroids expert testifies at Barry Bonds trial”: Lance Williams has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

In today’s edition of The San Jose Mercury News, Howard Mintz reports that “Barry Bonds perjury trial wraps for the week with anti-doping expert, estranged friend.”

And The New York Times reports that “Bonds Jury Hears the Science of Steroids.”

“Supreme Court to Decide Whether Millions of Female Employees Can Sue Walmart; Current and Former Employees Allege Sex Discrimination”: Ariane De Vogue has this article at ABCNews.com.

“Ex-prosecutor Richard Convertino’s whistle-blower suit dismissed”: Today’s edition of The Detroit Free Press contains an article that begins, “Saying that the case has enough twists for a fictional thriller, a federal judge dismissed on Thursday a former federal prosecutor’s whistle-blower case against the U.S. Justice Department for allegedly leaking harmful information to a Free Press reporter.”

The Detroit News reports today that “Ex-prosecutor Convertino loses fight to unmask tipster’s identity.”

The Associated Press reports that “Ex-terrorism prosecutor loses lawsuit over story.”

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Mike Scarcella has a post titled “D.C. Judge Thwarts Ex-Prosecutor’s Suit Over Leaked Ethics Probe.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia at this link.

“Federal judge lightens case load at age 103”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Supreme Court ruling in Ramsey County case may limit consensual sex claims in rape cases; Justices strike ban on victim-behavior testimony in trials”: This article appears today in The Pioneer Press of St. Paul, Minnesota.

And The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports today that “Decision could ease way to rape conviction; Minnesota Supreme Court allows experts to explain confusing behavior by some victims.”

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

“Rich Candidate Expected To Win Again: Does the Supreme Court care more about free speech for the wealthy than about political corruption?” Law professor Richard L. Hasen, author of the “Election Law Blog,” has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Supreme Court takes road show hearing to Drake”: This article appears today in The Des Moines Register.