“Florida Supreme Court overhaul hits resistance in Senate”: This article will appear Friday in The St. Petersburg Times.

And The Orlando Sentinel has a news update headlined “Split Supreme Court plan jams up Senate.”

“SJC nominee’s record is hotly disputed at hearing”: Today’s edition of The Boston Globe contains an article that begins, “In the space of seven hours yesterday, Barbara A. Lenk was both savaged as an immoral participant in a plan to convert children into homosexuals and lauded as a learned and compassionate lawyer and mother whose wisdom is sorely needed by Massachusetts.”

Today’s edition of The Boston Herald contains an article headlined “Councilors play dirty at hearing.”

The Standard Times of New Bedford, Massachusetts reports that “Cipollini presses openly gay SJC nominee on same-sex marriage.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Confirmation hearing held for Mass. SJC pick.”

“How the Law Accepted Gays”: Law professor Dale Carpenter will have this op-ed Friday in The New York Times.

“The Case for Early Retirement: Why Justices Ginsburg and Breyer should retire immediately.” Law professor Randall Kennedy has this essay online at The New Republic.

“A Conversation With John Paul Stevens: In a rare interview, the former Supreme Court justice talks about the book he’s writing and why he decided to retire last year.” Bill Barnhart has this blog post today online at The Atlantic.

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “Justice Stevens Reveals Plan to Write a Book, Talks About Decision to Retire.”

Ninth Circuit reinstates criminal charges under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in United States v. Nosal: According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which participated in the appeal as an amicus on the defendant’s behalf, the charges at issue “would turn any employee use of company computers in violation of corporate policy into a federal crime.”

Earlier, at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Orin Kerr had a post about the case titled “Lori Drew, Take 2?: The Government’s Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Prosecution in United States v. Nosal.”

Today, the majority on a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling reinstating the charges in question.

Warrant not required for 60-hour GPS tracking of automobile, majority on divided three-judge Seventh Circuit holds: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link. Each of the three judges on the panel issued an opinion.

“Prop. 8 video flap goes to Walker’s replacement”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “San Francisco’s new chief federal judge now must decide whether his predecessor can keep the video recordings of the trial over California’s ban on same-sex marriage – and whether he should have disqualified himself from presiding over that trial.”

“NFL takes lockout fight to appeals court”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Supreme Court says arbitration agreements can ban class-action efforts”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post.

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that “Companies can block customers’ class-action lawsuits, Supreme Court rules; Justices rule in a Southern California case that firms can force customers to arbitrate their complaints individually; The ruling is seen as a major victory for corporations.”

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Supreme Court backs AT&T, limits class-action suits.”

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Supreme Court rejects class-action arbitration.”

On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “Supreme Court Imposes Limits On Class Actions.”

And via law.com, Petra Pasternak of The Recorder reports that “Class Action Ruling an Earthquake for California Litigation.”

“Guantanamo Detainee’s Lawyer Seeks a Voice on WikiLeaks Documents”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

In related news, “Advisers on Interrogation Face Legal Action by Critics.”

And an article reports that “A 9/11 Judge Sets a Timer for a Month.”