“Ranking the Politics of Supreme Court Justices: Four of the five most conservative justices since 1937 are on the bench today.” This article appears online at the web site of U.S. News & World Report.

“New Worries for 401(k) Plans; Recent Supreme Court decision may unleash wave of investor suits”: law.com provides this report.

“U.S. Supreme Court will not hear church’s appeal on O’Hare cemetery plans; Pending court cases, though, mean airport expansion plans in limbo”: The Chicago Tribune contains this article today.

“Iowa’s longest-serving justice retires from Supreme Court”: This article appears today in The Des Moines Register.

“Feds unveil new indictment against Barry Bonds”: The Associated Press provides this report.

C-SPAN broadcasts Ninth Circuit oral argument of case challenging the constitutionality of the federal no-fly list: A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in Ibrahim v. Homeland Security on April 18, 2008. This past Saturday, C-SPAN aired the oral argument on “America and the Courts.” You can view the broadcast by clicking here (RealPlayer required).

The three-judge panel that heard oral argument consisted of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith, and U.S. District Judge S. James Otero of the Central District of California.

According to C-SPAN’s description of the case, “In 2005 Stanford University student Rahinah Ibrahim was handcuffed and detained at the San Francisco International Airport while trying to fly home to Malaysia. After arriving in Malaysia, the U.S. Embassy revoked her visa, and she has not been allowed in the United States since.” The Stanford Daily reported on the case in an article published in February 2006.

“Judge dismisses case of woman who says veil cost her claim”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A federal judge in Detroit has dismissed the case of a Muslim woman who sued a judge for demanding she remove her veil in court.”

I have posted online at this link yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

“Adam Liptak, the national legal reporter of The New York Times, is answering questions from readers this week.” Details here, including the email address to which questions may be sent.

Books that recently arrived in the mail: Today, I received a copy of “Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges” by Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner.

Yesterday, I received a copy of “The Importance of Being Honest: How Lying, Secrecy, and Hypocrisy Collide with Truth in Law” by Steven Lubet.

Recently, I received a copy of “The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom” by Robert A. Levy and William Mellor.

And, last but not least, I recently received a copy of “Patent Appeals: The Elements of Effective Advocacy in the Federal Circuit” by Mark Simon Davies.

“California Supreme Court rules for prosecutor who advised filmmakers; A Santa Barbara County deputy district attorney may stay on a death penalty case even after consulting on ‘Alpha Dog,’ a movie about an accused killer; Other rulings address similar potential conflict”: Maura Dolan has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

And today in The New York Times, Adam Liptak has an article headlined “When Literary and Prosecutorial License Collide.”

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of California issued decisions in cases captioned Haraguchi v. Superior Court; Hollywood v. Superior Court; and The People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.).

“Court upholds dress codes; County schools do not violate students’ rights”: The Las Vegas Review-Journal today contains an article that begins, “A federal appeals court ruled Monday that Clark County’s school dress codes do not violate students’ right to free speech after considering a case involving a junior suspended for wearing T-shirts expressing her religious faith.”

And Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports today that “Court says schoolkids not harmed by uniforms.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Ninth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Contractor says Fieger warned her of FBI visit; Journalist testifies attorney told her not to talk to investigators about campaign donation”: The Detroit News contains this article today.

“Execution in officer’s death stayed; U.S. Supreme Court will hear appeal concerning performance of lawyers”: This article appears today in The Richmond Times-Dispatch.

And The Washington Post reports today that “Court Stays Execution Of Va. Man, Takes Case.”

“Guantanamo detainees are facing death penalty; Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four others have been charged by a Pentagon official with conspiring in the Sept. 11 attacks”: Carol Rosenberg has this article today in The Miami Herald.

“Justices’ Conflicts Halt Apartheid Appeal”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.

Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Investment Conflicts for High Court; Personal Holdings Prevent Justices From Hearing Case.”

Patti Waldmeir of Financial Times reports that “Apartheid court case can go ahead in US.”

Joseph Goldstein of The New York Sun reports that “High Court Recusals Derail Apartheid Case.”

law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “Supreme Court Recusals Hit Home in Controversial Apartheid Suit.”

And The Washington Times reports that “Conflicts derail key apartheid case.”

“The Myth of Voter Fraud”: The New York Times today contains an editorial that begins, “Missouri and at least 19 other states are considering passing laws that would force people to prove their citizenship before they can vote.”

“Disputes reflect continuing tension over Title IX; Ruling fuels new lawsuits on gender equity in sports”: This front page article appears today in USA Today.

And today’s edition of The New York Times contains an article headlined “Taking Aim at Gender Barriers In a Full-Contact Sport.”

“Souter Protects Anonymity as Court Colleagues Seek Spotlight”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has an article that begins, “As soon as the U.S. Supreme Court ended its March 30, 2004, session, Justice David Souter donned his suit jacket and walked out the court’s front door, past scores of people who had watched the argument. The only person who so much as noticed him was the attorney who had just argued the case.”