“Lopsided Fight Over High Court Shapes Up; Conservatives Prepare For Underdog Role”: Friday’s edition of The Washington Post will contain this article.

“Lawmakers Balk at Holding Guantanamo Detainees in U.S.” This article will appear Friday in The Washington Post.

And McClatchy Newspapers report that “GOP ratchets up debate over release of Gitmo detainees.”

“White House Formalizes Supreme Court Short List”: ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg has this post at her “Legalities” blog.

“Supreme Court denies Demjanjuk’s deportation plea”: The Associated Press has this report.

“This case stems from a dangerous, cruel, and highly indecent use of the internet for the apparent purpose of revenge.” So writes Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a ruling issued today in the case known as Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.

According to today’s decision, the plaintiff’s lawsuit (access the plaintiff’s complaint initiating suit at this link) alleged that her former boyfriend created a Yahoo! account through which the plaintiff herself appeared to be soliciting men with whom to have sexual relations and that the Yahoo! account “also included the addresses, real and electronic, and telephone number at [plaintiff’s] place of employment.” Thereafter, men whom the plaintiff did not know “were peppering her office with emails, phone calls, and personal visits, all in the expectation of sex.”

The trial court in November 2005 had issued a decision dismissing all of plaintiff’s claims, holding that Yahoo! was immune from liability under the Communications Decency Act of 1996 even though plaintiff had alleged that Yahoo! “undertook to remove from its website material harmful to the plaintiff but failed to do so.”

Today’s ruling holds that plaintiff’s complaint can be understood to allege a claim for promissory estoppel and that the Communications Decency Act would not necessarily preclude that claim.

Additional coverage of the trial court’s ruling in this case can be accessed via Citizen Media Law Project, “Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions,” and law professor Eric Goldman’s “Technology & Marketing Law Blog.”

In today’s mail: A copy of the new book “A Good Quarrel: America’s Top Legal Reporters Share Stories from Inside the Supreme Court,” edited by Timothy R. Johnson and Jerry Goldman. Audio clips featured in the book can be accessed via this link.

“To Replace Low-Key Souter, Obama May Go Bolder”: Adam Liptak will have this article Friday in The New York Times.

The Economist has posted online an article headlined “Following Souter: Barack Obama has a chance to rejuvenate the Supreme Court’s liberal wing.”

Politico.com has articles headlined “Sessions open minded on gay justice” and “Hatch: Sotomayor has ‘a problem.’”

NationalJournal.com has an item headlined “Sessions Says He’s Looking For Judicial Restraint; New Ranking Member On Senate Judiciary Panel Describes What He’s Seeking In A Supreme Court Nominee.”

And The Nation has posted online an editorial entitled “Following Souter.”

“Supreme Court Justice Alito visits Juneau”: This article appears today in The Juneau Empire.

“The Case for Empathy: Why a much-maligned value is a crucial qualification for the Supreme Court.” Law professor Douglas W. Kmiec has this essay at the web site of America, the national Catholic weekly.

“N.J. bars can’t be liable for drunk drivers if they didn’t serve them alcohol, top court rules”: The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger has a news update that begins, “New Jersey bar owners can’t be sued for allowing customers to drive away drunk — if they weren’t the ones who served them alcohol — the state Supreme Court unanimously ruled today.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of New Jersey at this link.

“N.J. Supreme Court invalidates restrictions on where sex offenders can live”: The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger has a news update that begins, “Towns can’t make their own laws to decide where sex offenders can live within their borders because Megan’s Law already makes that call, the state Supreme Court said today.”

The Philadelphia Inquirer has a news update headlined “N.J. high court strikes down sex offender residency restrictions.”

And The Associated Press reports that “NJ court strikes down sex offender residency limit.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of New Jersey at this link.

“Judge takes step to air his views; UNLV fellow, Bush memo author seeks to meet Titus”: Today’s edition of The Las Vegas Sun contains an article that begins, “As criticism of federal appellate court Judge Jay Bybee mounts for authorizing harsh interrogation techniques as a Bush administration lawyer, the Nevada jurist has reached out to members of the state’s congressional delegation, apparently to tell his side of the story.”

The Washington Post today contains an article headlined “Experts Say Authors Of Memos May Avoid Professional Sanctions.”

The Associated Press reports that “Bush attorneys who wrote terror memo face backlash.”

The Daily Universe of Brigham Young University reports that “BYU alum ensnared in torture controversy.”

The New York Times contains an editorial entitled “The Torture Debate: The Lawyers.”

The New York Daily News contains an editorial entitled “Case closed: Justice Department should bar prosecutions over Bush torture memos.”

And at her “Legalities” blog, ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg has a post titled “Tortured Timing.”

“A Deep Bench”: Today in The New York Times, Senior U.S. District Judge Ann Aldrich (N.D. Ohio), along with her judicial law clerks, Alex Frondorf and Richard J. Hawkins, have an op-ed that begins, “To succeed Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court, President Obama should select a nominee with experience that no other sitting justice has — service as a trial judge on a federal district court.”

“Supreme Court vetting moving quickly”: Bill Mears of CNN.com has this report. That web site also has an essay by law professor Timothy P. O’Neill entitled “Enough Ivy League judges on top court.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Obama Court Decision Shaped by Years, Wife’s Advice.”

The Pioneer Press of St. Paul, Minnesota contains an article headlined “Klobuchar for Supreme Court? Thanks, but …; ‘Minnesota deserves at least one senator,’ she says of the speculation.”

The Des Moines Register reports today that “Grassley says Obama’s high court pick could face rough road.”

The Mobile (Ala.) Press-Register today contains an editorial entitled “Sessions will probe Obama’s nominees.”

Online at The Guardian (UK), law professor Jack Balkin has an essay entitled “Supreme court justices have it too good: Life on the US supreme court has become too comfortable; Judges should hear more cases and be replaced regularly.”

At “The Daily Beast,” law professor Paul Campos has an essay entitled “Fat Judges Need Not Apply” (via “Too Fat for the Supreme Court?” at “Latina”).

“Patrick to appeal ruling on police, firefighter exams; Fights suit saying tests are biased”: Today in The Boston Globe, Jonathan Saltzman has an article that begins, “Governor Deval Patrick, who once headed the Civil Rights Division of the US Justice Department, plans to appeal a federal court ruling that allows minority police officers to pursue a civil rights lawsuit challenging the state’s promotional exam.”

“Is Guantanamo Republicans’ winning issue?” Alex Isenstadt has this article online at Politico.com.

In the April 2009 issue of the Stanford Law Review: Rachel C. Lee has an interesting note titled “Ex Parte Blogging: The Legal Ethics of Supreme Court Advocacy in the Internet Era.”