“The Day After Roe: If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, it will set off tectonic shifts in the American political landscape not seen since the civil-rights movement–or perhaps even the Civil War.” Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen will have this lengthy article (subscription required for full access) in the June 2006 issue of The Atlantic Monthly. The magazine provides free online access to this interview with Professor Rosen about the article.

“Justice Scalia attends Mass in St. Louis”: The St. Louis Post-Dispatch provides this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Justice Scalia says Supreme Court should take back seat to voters.”

“Murder suspect may appeal case to Supreme Court, judge rules”: The Burlington (Vt.) Free Press today contains an article that begins, “The man accused of killing a Winooski resident in the 1970s may appeal to the Supreme Court whether someone can be charged with murder if the victim dies more than a year after being injured, a judge has ruled.”

Available online from law.com: An article reports that “Recusal Fight Highlights Judicial Election Concerns; The appeal of a $50M verdict involving key donor draws fire.”

And in news from New York State, “Raging Bull No Liability for Owner.”

“Salazar: Bush judicial nominee unqualified.” The Rocky Mountain News provides an update that begins, “Sen. Ken Salazar on Wednesday called one of President Bush’s pending judicial nominees unqualified and ‘out of the mainstream,’ but he said it’s too early to say whether a filibuster will be needed to block the nomination. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said Democrats would attempt a filibuster — an indefinite procedural delay — to block the nomination of Terrence W. Boyle to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals unless the president withdraws the pick.”

And National Journal’s “Hotline On Call” blog contains a post titled “Gang Of 14 Split On Kavanaugh?”

“Complex Martyr: The Zacarias Moussaoui jurors split the difference.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered“: The broadcast contained segments entitled “Federal Jury Votes to Spare Moussaoui’s Life“; “The Trial of Moussaoui, the Fight Against Terrorism“; and “No Model Client: Moussaoui’s Lawyer Speaks” (RealPlayer required).

Today’s rulings of note from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: In the first of today’s two rulings of note, the court rejects a First Amendment challenge to a federal regulation that prevented a Social Security Administration Administrative Law Judge from collecting royalties from the publisher of a textbook that the ALJ wrote on the subject of Social Security disability law. You can access today’s ruling at this link.

And in today’s other ruling of note, the court rules that “Title VII does not create a statutory right to the effective assistance of counsel.”

After pleading guilty to offenses that carried the minimum sentence of life imprisonment without parole, and in light of today’s jury verdict failing to recommend the death penalty, will Zacarias Moussaoui qualify as aggrieved from the sentence of life imprisonment such that he will have standing to appeal? For example, Moussaoui may wish to argue on appeal that he should have been able to serve as his own attorney during the sentencing phase of the trial. But since he will receive the minimum sentence for the crimes to which he has pleaded guilty, can Moussaoui appeal on that basis? Assume, for purposes of my question, that Moussaoui’s guilty pleas waive all grounds for appeal challenging the guilt-or-innocence phase of the proceeding.

Anyone with particular insight into this question is invited to respond via email.

“Jurors Call for Life in Prison in Moussaoui Case”: The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.

Access online the redacted jury verdict form that reflects the recommendation that Zacarias Moussaoui be sentenced to life imprisonment: The redacted jury verdict form delivered this afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia can be accessed here.

“How Moussaoui’s sentencing trial ended with ‘life’; The federal judge in the case is expected to formally sentence him Thursday morning”: Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor provides this report.

“Contra-Contraception: A growing number of conservatives see birth control as part of an ailing culture that overemphasizes sex and devalues human life; Is this the beginning of the next culture war?” This upcoming Sunday’s issue of The New York Times Magazine will contain this article (TimesSelect subscription required) by Russell Shorto.

“Jury Decides Against Execution for Moussaoui”: The New York Times provides this news update.

View the announcement to the media of the Moussaoui verdict by the court’s public information officer: The Associated Press provides this video (RealPlayer required).

“Jury Rejects Death Sentence for Moussaoui”: The Washington Post provides this news update.

BREAKING NEWS — Moussaoui to be sentenced to life imprisonment on all counts: The Associated Press reports that “Moussaoui Gets Life for Role in Sept. 11.”

BREAKING NEWS — “Verdict Reached in Moussaoui Sentencing”: The Associated Press provides this report. The verdict is scheduled to be announced today at 4:30 p.m. Stay tuned for additional coverage.

The 42-page special verdict form that the jury was given for this phase of the proceeding can be accessed here.

In other coverage, CNN.com reports that “Jury reaches verdict in 9/11 trial; 9/11 trial ends after wrenching images, heartbreaking testimony.”

The current installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com is headlined “Considering a Likely Appeal in the Moussaoui Case.”

Kenneth W. Starr and “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”: The Juneau Empire today contains an article headlined, “‘Bong Hits’ to Supreme Court? School Board secures former Clinton investigator Kenneth Starr as pro bono attorney in attempt to reverse ruling in First Amendment banner case.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Kenneth Starr to Take on Alaska Appeal.”

My coverage of the Ninth Circuit‘s ruling in this case can be accessed here.

“Breyer Calls High Court ‘Boundary Patrol'”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The job of a justice on the nation’s highest court is to patrol the boundaries of American society, not to decide what kind of society it should have, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said Tuesday.”

Yesterday, Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the Sidney Shainwald Public Interest Lecture at New York Law School. Additional details are available here and here, and you can view archived video of Justice Breyer’s remarks by clicking here (Windows Media Player required).

“A Public Disservice: Senate Democrats unjustly and hypocritically attack Kavanaugh.” Edward Whelan has this essay today at National Review Online.

“Landscape in Ala. Governor’s Race Shifts”: The AP provides a report that begins, “Roy Moore’s unsuccessful fight to display the Ten Commandments and keep his job as Alabama’s chief justice made him a national hero to religious conservatives three years ago. But Moore isn’t getting treated like a hero in the state’s topsy-turvy race for governor.”

“Ginsburg: Congress’ Watchdog Plan ‘Scary.'” Gina Holland of The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Tuesday that a Republican proposal in Congress to set up a watchdog over the federal courts is a ‘really scary idea.'”

In news and commentary from Oklahoma: The Tulsa World today contains an article headlined “Ten Commandments: Judge will rule on monument this month; Outside the courtroom, both sides expressed confidence in their arguments.” And yesterday’s edition of that newspaper contained an article headlined “U.S. court scene of biblical debate; Haskell County’s Ten Commandments monument is criticized, defended.”

The Oklahoman today contains an article headlined “Reason disputed for monument.” Yesterday, the newspaper contained articles headlined “2 sides disagree on display’s role” and “Atoka gets Ten Commandments display.”

Meanwhile, in commentary, The Oklahoman today contains an editorial entitled “Displays vexing even to liberals.” The editorial begins, “Look, there on the public square: It’s a religious display! No, it’s a mere historical marker! No, it’s a legal conundrum. Are those courthouse Ten Commandments displays religious or historical? Take two tablets and call Moses in the morning. He started this thing. Better yet, call Solomon. His wisdom will be needed as judges part the arguments on whether the public square is a proper place for a display of text taken from the Bible.”

And The Muskogee Daily Phoenix today contains an editorial entitled “Ten Commandments bill shows state religious bias.”

“Log Cabin Republicans Re-File Federal Challenge to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy”: That organization issued this press release yesterday.

“Bush and Frist Playing Right-Wing Politics with Judicial Nominations”: The organization People For the American Way issued this statement today.

Meanwhile, for those in search of a different perspective, the U.S. Senate‘s Republican Policy Committee yesterday issued a document entitled “Summary of Judicial Nominations in the 109th Congress; Much Work to be Do Before Adjournment.”

“Hearing vowed on Bush’s powers; Senator questions bypassing of laws”: Charlie Savage has this article today in The Boston Globe.

“‘Gang’ Set to Meet on Judges; Parties Circle Warily on Pair”: Roll Call today contains an article (subscription required) that begins, “With the stage set for a confrontation over two controversial judicial nominations, Senators in the ‘Gang of 14’ are expected to meet in the coming days to chart a strategy regarding what role the bipartisan group will play in trying to avoid another ugly battle over filibusters.”

Additional excerpts of the article are available at this post from “Confirm Them.”

“Aptronym Watch: Sue Yoo Too! Meet a born lawyer.” Timothy Noah has this chatterbox essay online at Slate.

Seventh Circuit denies rehearing en banc in case upholding taxpayer standing to challenge the use of money appropriated by Congress under Article I, section 8, to fund conferences that various executive-branch agencies hold to promote President Bush’s “Faith-Based and Community Initiatives”: You can access today’s order at this link. Four judges dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc, while two others (who had they joined with the four dissenters would have sufficed to cause rehearing en banc to be granted on this eleven-judge court) concurred in the denial of rehearing en banc in opinions which explained that only the U.S. Supreme Court can clarify the morass that is taxpayer standing.

Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook, in his concurring opinion, notes both that “The principal difficulty with arguments pro and con about taxpayer standing is that the doctrine is arbitrary” and “Perhaps Michael Newdow should have invoked his tax return, rather than his status as a father, to challenge the inclusion of ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance.”

My earlier coverage of the divided three-judge panel’s ruling in the case can be accessed here.

A federal criminal defendant’s state court attorney malpractice lawsuit against his former federal court defense counsel is not subject to removal to federal court simply because the lawsuit entails a substantial evaluation of applicable federal law: Although a federal district judge in Illinois had upheld the removal, today a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in an opinion by Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner, vacates the judgment and orders the case remanded to state court.

“Judge Doubts Moussaoui’s Claims About 9/11”: The Associated Press provides this report.

Slot machine player on riverboat casino that had been moored for two years to a pier on a navigable portion of the Des Plaines River in Illinois may possess a claim arising under the federal district court’s admiralty jurisdiction arising from injuries sustained when the stool she was leaning against collapsed: Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner issued this opinion today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

“Court Upholds Polygraph for Sex Offenders”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A federal appeals court ruled that lie detector tests can be used to ensure convicted sex offenders are obeying the rules of their probation and that a ban on Internet use is appropriate for some offenders.”

You can access Monday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

“Juveniles in U.S. prisons win time-served right”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has this article reporting on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued yesterday.