Available online from law.com: An article reports that “2nd Circuit Clarifies Rule for Calculating Fees; Client’s willingness to pay is focus.” You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

And in other news, “Paintball-Shooting Toll Collector Can Go Back to Work, Court Says.” You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of New Jersey at this link.

“Appeals court says fight over Bible in courthouse display moot”: The Associated Press provides this report.

My earlier coverage of today’s en banc Fifth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Mexico City Legalizes Abortion Early in Term”: This article will appear Wednesday in The New York Times.

And The Washington Post on Wednesday will report that “Mexico City’s Legislature Votes to Legalize Abortion.”

“These consolidated appeals arise out of the violent collapse of the Texas A&M University bonfire stack on November 18, 1999, which killed 12 students and injured 27 others.” So begins an opinion that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued today.

And the opinion ends, “For these reasons, we conclude that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from suit based on plaintiffs’ section 1983 claims, and we therefore AFFIRM the summary judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiffs’ complaints.”

“Case of Ex-Senator Argued in High Court”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“North Dakota passes conditional abortion ban”: This article appears today in The Bismarck Tribune.

And The Grand Forks Herald reports today that “N.D. Legislature outlaws abortion in N.D. with ‘trigger’ bill.”

“Mexico City lawmakers vote to legalize abortion; Enactment of the bill is expected, as Mexico City mayor Marcelo Ebrard has promised to sign it into law”: The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.

The Associated Press reports that “Mexico City Lawmakers Pass Abortion Bill.”

And Reuters reports that “Mexico City legalizes abortion, defies Church.”

In Wednesday’s edition of The Christian Science Monitor: Warren Richey will report that “US Supreme Court reviews limits on political ads; Campaign-finance and free-speech issues are involved, and the case could reveal dynamics at the high court.”

And Gail Russell Chaddock will have an article headlined “Bush, Congress reach for war’s reins; The showdown this week between President Bush and Congress on war funding is a constitutional issue over who controls the military.”

“Analysis: Limits on Bush’s Loyalty?” The AP provides a news analysis that begins, “Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has fewer and fewer supporters in Washington, but he’s got the one who counts. The question is: Why does President Bush back him so strongly when so many other Republicans think Gonzales should quit?”

“Preliminary Analysis of Oral Argument in Beck ERISA Fiduciary Case”: Paul M. Secunda has this post at “Workplace Prof Blog.”

“Supreme Court Debates Tax Case of International Proportions”: law.com’s Tony Mauro provides this news update.

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “EPA Won’t Specify Global Warming Plans“; “Mexico City Expected to Allow Abortions“; and “Challenger of Lethal Injection Executed.”

“Senate workers’ rights: skepticism abounds.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

Update: You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Office of Sen. Mark Dayton v. Hanson, No. 06-618.

Access online today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument transcripts: The transcript in Permanent Mission of India to United Nations v. City of New York, No. 06-1634, can be accessed here.

And the transcript in Beck v. PACE Int’l Union, No. 05-1448, can be accessed here.

Establishment Clause challenge to Bible monument located on the grounds of the Harris County Civil Courthouse is moot, en banc Fifth Circuit rules: You can access today’s en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link. Three judges dissent from the en banc court’s mootness holding, while two judges dissent from the en banc court’s refusal to vacate the federal district court’s judgment.

According to that second dissent, “Properly framed, the question is whether vacatur is appropriate when voluntary action taken by an appellant moots a case, but the action taken is completely unrelated to the litigation. The question should be answered in the affirmative. Admittedly, the few vacatur rules given to us by the Supreme Court do not directly answer the question, and our Court has not yet squarely addressed it. However, every other circuit court to address the issue has determined that vacatur is appropriate under such circumstances.”

I wrote about this case in the September 5, 2006 installment of my weekly “On Appeal” column for law.com, headlined “Monument at Houston Courthouse Tests the Limits of Ten Commandments Rulings.”

In opposing the ADA claims of proposed local package delivery van drivers who are hard of hearing, UPS obtains rehearing en banc from Ninth Circuit: Back on October 11, 2006, Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle had an article headlined “Deaf drivers due a chance at UPS jobs, court says; Some may be as safe as rivals with normal hearing, ruling holds.” The article begins, “Deaf people who are qualified to drive in every state should have a chance to drive small delivery trucks for United Parcel Service if they show they are as safe behind the wheel as employees with normal hearing, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a federal judge’s ruling two years ago that UPS, the world’s largest private package carrier, violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by refusing to allow deaf employees to compete for jobs driving its smaller trucks, those weighing 10,000 pounds or less.”

Circuit Judge Marsha S. Berzon issued that ruling on behalf of a unanimous three-judge Ninth Circuit panel. Yet Judge Berzon was the only active Ninth Circuit judge on that panel, and apparently some of her colleagues on that court were less than enthusiastic about the ruling, as today the Ninth Circuit issued an order granting rehearing en banc in the case.

“Vonage, Facing Customer Ban, Wins Extended Stay”: Bloomberg News provides this report.

The Associated Press reports that “Vonage Injunction Stayed in Patent Case.”

And Reuters provides a report headlined “Vonage says wins court stay in Verizon patent fight.”

“Thomas Recusal Mystery Solved”: At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post that begins, “For the last two years, Justice Clarence Thomas has consistently recused himself in cases in which Wachovia Bank is a party — most notably the landmark decision last week in Watters v. Wachovia Bank, a win for federal regulation of national bank subsidiaries.”

“High Court Weighs Tax Immunity Question”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Supreme Court justices cast a skeptical eye Tuesday on claims that U.N. diplomats should not pay property taxes to New York City, despite a lawyer’s warning that a ruling for the city could mean higher bills for U.S. sites around the world.”

In today’s mail: A copy of the book “Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas” by Kevin Merida and Michael A. Fletcher. The book officially goes on sale today.

“Anti-affirmative action ballot issue proposed; Measure could be the hot-button issue of ’08 election cycle”: The Rocky Mountain News contains this article today.

The Denver Post reports today that “Race, sex emphasis in Colo. targeted; Vote eyed to quash affirmative action.”

The Colorado Springs Gazette reports that “Affirmative action may be bound for ballots.”

And The Washington Times reports that “Colorado takes aim at race, sex preferences.”

“In a hole, still digging: Embattled attorney general did himself no favors with evasive, contradictory testimony to Senate panel.” This editorial appears today in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The Chicago Tribune today contains an editorial entitled “The man who was not there.” In addition, Law Professor Douglas W. Kmiec has an op-ed entitled “Gonzales case merely a footnote.”

And in The Boston Globe, columnist Peter S. Canellos has an essay entitled “Support of Gonzales affirms power play.”

“SJC sends tobacco-money dispute to arbitration panel; State says it is owed $60 million”: The Boston Globe today contains an article that begins, “The state Supreme Judicial Court ruled yesterday that a dispute over whether two major tobacco companies have shortchanged Massachusetts by some $60 million in settlement payments over the past two years must be resolved by an arbitration panel, rather than by a state judge.”

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

Available online from the New England Journal of Medicine: R. Alta Charo, J.D. has an essay entitled “The Partial Death of Abortion Rights.”

Michael F. Greene, M.D. has an essay entitled “The Intimidation of American Physicians — Banning Partial-Birth Abortion.”

And Jeffrey M. Drazen, M.D. has an essay entitled “Government in Medicine.”

A bit earlier this morning, I linked here to some press coverage of these essays.

“The Roberts’ Court”: Yesterday’s broadcast of the public radio program “On Point” featured as guests ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg, Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen, and Time magazine national political correspondent Karen Tumulty. You can access the audio online using either RealPlayer or Windows Media Player.

“Vote could end Mexico’s abortion subculture; If lawmakers decide this week to legalize the procedure, it could signal the demise of a thriving herbal, medicinal and surgical black market”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Case against University of Phoenix stands; The Supreme Court refuses to throw out a False Claims Act lawsuit alleging loan fraud”: Henry Weinstein has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Are passengers ‘seized’ during a police stop? Supreme Court to decide; Justices to decide search rights of passengers when a driver is pulled over.” David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Reliability of execution drugs is in question; The faulty administration of two of the three chemicals leaves some inmates suffocating and conscious, a report says”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

“Miers weighed Yang’s firing according to Sen. Feinstein”: This article appears today in The Hill.

The Los Angeles Times today contains articles headlined “Bush endorses attorney general’s testimony on firings; Gonzales ‘increased my confidence in his ability to do the job,’ president says; But others wonder if the White House fears Rove could be targeted” and “Low-key office launches high-profile inquiry; The Office of Special Counsel will investigate U.S. attorney firings and other political activities led by Karl Rove.”

The Washington Times reports that “Gonzales vows to stay in attorney general job.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Bush’s ‘Confidence’ May Not Equal Job Security for Gonzales.”

And today’s installment of Dana Milbank’s “Washington Sketch” column in The Washington Post is headlined “Identity Theft? Gonzales Might Know Something About That.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Hearing Problem: What will it take for the president to lose faith in Alberto Gonzales?”

“U.S. Supreme Court Abortion Ruling Denounced in Medical Journal”: Bloomberg News provides a report that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act was an intrusion by government into the practice of medicine, said doctors writing for the New England Journal of Medicine.”

Reuters provides a report headlined “Supreme Court abortion rule chills doctors: journal.”

And The Washington Post today contains an article headlined “Va. Law to Be Reconsidered In Wake of High Court Ruling; State’s Ban on Procedure Overturned in 2005” that begins, “The Supreme Court decision upholding the federal ban on a controversial abortion procedure started playing out in Virginia yesterday, as the justices ordered a Richmond-based appellate court to reconsider the state law it struck down barring the procedure.”

“Countries Seek Immunity From NYC Lawsuit”: The Associated Press reports here that “The Supreme Court was to hear arguments Tuesday from lawyers representing India and Mongolia, which are fighting New York’s effort to collect property taxes from nations that operate diplomatic offices and house their employees in the same buildings.”

“Equality’s Defeat: How Abortion Disserves Equality; Abortion Puts the Burden on Women to Satisfy Corporate America When It Should be the Reverse”: Law Professor Douglas W. Kmiec has this interesting post at NPR’s “Justice Talking” blog.

“At Trial, Pain Has a Witness”: Today in The New York Times, John Tierney has an article that begins, “William E. Hurwitz, the prominent doctor on trial here for drug trafficking, spent more than two days on the witness stand last week telling a jury why he had prescribed painkillers to patients who turned out to be drug dealers and addicts. But the clearest explanation of his actions — and of the problem facing patients who are in pain — came earlier in the trial.”

“Jury Selection Is Slow Going in Padilla Terrorism Trial”: The New York Times contains this article today.