“The Power of Posner: A Study of Prestige and Influence in the Federal Judiciary.” Christopher C. McCurdy and Ryan P. Thompson have posted this paper online at SSRN.

“Islamic charity wins suit over wiretapping”: At his “Under the Radar” blog at Politico.com, Josh Gerstein has a post that begins, “A defunct Islamic charity has won its closely watched lawsuit over the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.” You can access the opinion at this link.

And at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog, David Kravets has a post titled “Court Says Bush Illegally Wiretapped Two Americans.”

“Communicating With Those Who Have No Privacy Rights: The Hard Question in City of Ontario v. Quon.” Orin Kerr has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

Access online today’s opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued two rulings in argued cases.

1. Justice Antonin Scalia announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court in part in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 08-1008. You can access the Court’s ruling at this link, while the oral argument transcript can be accessed here. This case produced an interesting line-up of Justices in that the result was 5-4 and the dissenting opinion was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined in by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer, and Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

2. In the final ruling issued today, Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court in Padilla v. Kentucky, No. 08-651. Justice Alito issued an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which the Chief Justice joined. And Justice Scalia issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined. You can access the oral argument transcript at this link.

Update: In early news coverage, The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: Defendants entitled to immigration advice.”

“Obama’s Recess Appointments Put Focus On Holds”: This audio segment appeared on yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“N.J. Supreme Court upholds privacy of personal e-mails accessed at work”: Today’s edition of The Newark Star-Ledger contains an article that begins, “A company should not have read e-mails a former employee wrote to her lawyer from a private, password-protected web account, even though she sent them from her employer’s computer, according to a state Supreme Court ruling today that attorneys said could influence workplace privacy rules across the country.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of New Jersey at this link. The opinion’s syllabus begins, “This case presents novel questions about the extent to which an employee can expect privacy and confidentiality in e-mails with her attorney, which she sent and received through her personal, password-protected, web-based e-mail account using an employer-issued computer.”

“Supreme Court’s first female justice lectures in Claremont”: This article appears today in The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin of Ontario, California.

“Abortion bill clears Round 1”: Today’s edition of The Omaha World-Herald contains an article that begins, “Nebraska lawmakers moved the state back into the spotlight of the national debate over abortion on Wednesday night. On a 38-5 vote, senators advanced a bill that would set a ‘bright line’ when abortions could no longer be performed in the state.”

And The Lincoln Journal Star reports today that “Bill to tighten abortion restrictions gains first-round approval.”

“Is mandate constitutional? If the individual health insurance mandate survives court challenges, states’ rights will have withered before our eyes.” Law professor Jonathan Turley has this op-ed today in USA Today.

“Supreme Court restricts whistle-blower lawsuits”: Joan Biskupic has this article today in USA Today.

“States act to revise judicial selection; Influence worries rise as money floods races”: Fredreka Schouten has this front page article today in USA Today.

And today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer contains an editorial entitled “High court justice for sale?”

“Justices Set Aside Ruling on Mutual Fund Fees”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Supreme Court sticks with longtime stand on fees for mutual funds.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Justices give mutual fund investors a crack at suing over exorbitant fees; In one of its most closely watched business cases this term, the Supreme Court still made it hard to win such claims and warned against judicial ‘second-guessing’ of independent boards’ fee decisions.”

USA Today reports that “Mutual fund fees case goes back to lower court; High court says fees hinge on criteria set in 1982 case.”

And Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal has an article headlined “Spin or Win for Investment Industry in High Court Mutual Funds Case?”

“How One Marijuana Cigarette May Lead to Deportation”: This article appears today in The New York Times, along with a related editorial entitled “Wishing Doesn’t Make It Law.”

And today’s edition of The Washington Post contains an editorial entitled “Should minor drug offenses lead to deportation?”