Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro reports that “Supreme Court Upholds Delaware’s Veto Power Over British Petroleum Project; High court appointed a special master to sift through thousands of documents and hear arguments from both sides.”

Marcia Coyle reports that “Federal Circuit May Be in for Big Changes; A startling two-thirds of the court soon to be eligible for senior status.”

And in other news, “State AG Attacks Business Method at Center of Key Patent Case.”

Can you dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc if you’re a senior status circuit judge who thus can’t vote in favor of rehearing en banc? Apparently the answer is “yes” in the Sixth Circuit, as evidenced by the senior status of the author of this dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc issued today. Thus, although a total of six judges join in the dissent, it only equates to five votes in favor of rehearing en banc.

You can access the ruling of the original divided three-judge Sixth Circuit panel at this link. I had this post about that decision on the day it issued.

“In the wake of September 11th, some Muslim Americans, completely innocent of any wrongdoing, became targets of gross misapprehensions and overbroad assumptions about their religious beliefs. But the event that shook the foundations of our buildings did not shake the premise of our founding — that here, in America, there is no heretical faith.” So writes Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in an opinion issued today.

“Forever Guantanamo”: Raymond Bonner has this review of four Guantanamo-related books in the April 17, 2008 issue of The New York Review of Books.

“U.S. Supreme Court agrees to take Pleasant Grove-Summum free speech case”: Pamela Manson of The Salt Lake Tribune provides this news update.

Tuesday in The Christian Science Monitor, Warren Richey will have an article headlined “U.S. Supreme Court takes a new 10 Commandments case; The Decalogue is on display in a public park in Utah; Is the park, therefore, a forum for expression of all types?”

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Court to rule on city park’s religious monument.”

And Pete Yost of The Associated Press reports that “Court Agrees to Take 2 Free Speech Cases.”

This blog’s first coverage of the dispute over whether towns in Utah that displayed on public property a monument to the Ten Commandments also had to permit the display on public property of a monument to the Seven Principles of the Summum religion appeared in a post I published at “How Appealing” on July 19, 2002. I also noted in that post that “Adherents of the Summum faith, at least according to the group’s official Web site, are heavily into mummification after death and also take quite a liking to masturbation while still among the living.”

You can access today’s U.S. Supreme Court Order List at this link.

“Supreme Court says Del. can block LNG project ; BP hopes to push on”: The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware provides this news update.

Tuesday in The Christian Science Monitor, Warren Richey will have an article headlined “Supreme Court upholds Delaware border claim; Ruling 6 to 2, the justices say New Jersey has no right to build a liquefied natural gas plant with a Delaware River pier.”

The Associated Press reports that “Delaware Wins High Court Fight Over NJ.”

And Reuters provides a report headlined “US high court: Delaware can block BP LNG terminal.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in New Jersey v. Delaware, No.134, Orig., at this link.

What’s new? On Monday through Thursday of last week, and again today, I was attending the trial of a civil case in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Camden. In November 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a decision on an appeal in which I represented the plaintiff-appellant. The Third Circuit’s ruling reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment against the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim and remanded that claim for trial.

The trial took place last week and concluded today with a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff on all issues, awarding to the plaintiff all of the damages that the plaintiff had sought. I was attending the trial at the plaintiff’s request to ensure that the plaintiff took all necessary steps during trial to preserve its appellate rights. Thanks to the great work of plaintiff’s trial counsel — David Sokasits, Esquire — it is now the defendant that is facing the need to file any post-judgment motions and any appeal.

Also today, I filed this Reply Brief for Appellants in the Third Circuit in a separate case that I previously mentioned in this post from January 2008. The opening Brief for Appellants in that case can be accessed here.

Programming note: I will again be in court today on a client matter. Additional posts will appear here later today. “SCOTUSblog” will provide timely coverage of today’s U.S. Supreme Court Order List and any opinions that the Court issues today.

“Wounded vet loses libel appeal against Moore”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

My earlier coverage of this recent First Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Judge Elizabeth Halverson courts trouble in Las Vegas; Her ex-bailiff, for example, has testified that she treated him like a houseboy; She has been suspended; an April hearing could remove her permanently”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“A Day in Court Denied”: Today in The Washington Post, Harold Hongju Koh, dean of Yale Law School, has an op-ed that begins, “Last week, the Supreme Court heard a case from Shawqi Omar and Mohammad Munaf, two American citizens held in a U.S. prison for more than three years without access to lawyers or judges.”

“The Vienna Convention: The U.S. must ensure that arrested foreigners can contact their consulates.” This editorial appears today in The Washington Post.

“Enron’s Skilling Attempts to Reverse His Guilty Verdict”: Today in The Wall Street Journal, John R. Emshwiller has an article that begins, “More than a year after U.S. prosecutors put former Enron Corp. president Jeffrey Skilling behind bars for his part in the iconic corporate scandal of the last decade, a court this week will weigh the possibility of overturning the government’s only unalloyed courtroom victory in its nearly five-year Enron probe.”

“The Fight Over ‘Fleeting Expletives’: How A Grant of Supreme Court Review May Lead to Expanded FCC Power and Reduced First Amendment Rights for Broadcasters.” Julie Hilden has this essay online today at FindLaw.