“Court Vacates Verdict vs. Philip Morris”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A landmark $150 million jury verdict against Philip Morris was vacated Wednesday by an appeals court, which ordered a new trial to reconsider damages against the tobacco manufacturer after a trial judge ruled the amount was excessive.” You can access today’s ruling of the Oregon Court of Appeals at this link.

“Plaintiffs Can Keep AT&T Papers in Domestic Spying Case”: law.com’s Justin Scheck provides this report.

Supreme Court of California rejects dubious certification request from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Perhaps you remember my post from March 14, 2006 titled “Federal appellate court certifies questions of federal law to a state supreme court.” And, in a post earlier that day, I called the Ninth Circuit’s certification order largely a “meaningless exercise.”

It appears that California’s highest court has agreed, as today it entered an order denying the Ninth Circuit’s certification request. Thanks to Kimberly A. Kralowec of “The UCL Practitioner” blog for drawing today’s development to my attention. Her earlier coverage of the matter is here.

“We are evenly divided, however, for substantially the same reasons as are set forth in the panel’s majority and dissenting opinions, on the question whether a Bivens action is available against employees of a privately-operated prison.” Sometimes taking a difficult issue en banc does not result in the issue’s resolution, as this en banc per curiam opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit announced today demonstrates. The original three-judge panel’s decision in the case can be accessed here.

“Respectfully disagreeing with the First Circuit, we hold that a constitutional provision imposing a supermajority requirement for enactment of initiatives on specific topics does not implicate the freedom of speech.” Circuit Judge Michael W. McConnell issued this interesting opinion today on behalf of the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Three-judge Ninth Circuit panel that decided controversial elementary school sex survey case still believes in the soundness of its original decision: Why merely lobby against rehearing en banc behind-the-scenes when you can do so publicly, as the original panel did in this per curiam opinion issued today.

The three-judge panel’s original ruling in this controversial case can be accessed here, while my coverage of that ruling appears at this link.

“Senate goes easy on moderate, to annoyance of conservatives”: Today in The Daily Journal of California, Lawrence Hurley has an article that begins, “Conservative activists vented their frustration Tuesday when the Republican-led Senate rubberstamped the nomination of Los Angeles attorney Milan D. Smith Jr. to the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals while leading lights of right-wing jurisprudence wait in limbo for other vacant circuit court positions.”

“Partisan Ethics: Some perspective on the charges against Judge Boyle.” Edward Whelan has this essay today at National Review Online.

The Associated Press is reporting: David Kravets reports that “Calif. Tosses Law Sealing Divorce Records.”

And in other news, “Jury Begins Deliberations in Enron Case“; “Kan. Justice Investigated Over Lunch Talk“; “Ga. to Appeal Gay Marriage Ban Ruling“; and “Judge Agrees to Extend Microsoft Oversight.”

Programming note: A new appellate case that I am working on in connection with my day job will have me out of the office for the balance of the afternoon. Additional posts will appear here later today.

“Senate approves Smith’s brother for federal appeals court”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The Senate Tuesday unanimously confirmed the brother of Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith as a federal appeals court judge. Milan Smith is a Los Angeles business lawyer and a former member of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Commission. He will serve on the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.”

And the Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued a news release entitled “Senate Confirms Milan D. Smith, Jr. for Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.”

“Virtues and Verdicts: Legal scholar Ronald Dworkin takes aim at Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and more.” In the May 22, 2006 issue of The New Republic, Law Professor Cass R. Sunstein has this review (pass-through link) of Ronald Dworkin’s new book, “Justice in Robes.”

Controlled Substances Act’s classification of hemp as marijuana is not irrational, Eighth Circuit holds: Indian Tribe members seeking to engage in sustainable farming on federal trust lands by growing hemp without a Certificate of Registration from the Drug Enforcement Agency permitting the manufacture of marijuana are out of luck, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled today in an opinion that you can access here.

“Blogs Raise New Questions About the Line Between Public and Private”: Ken Strutin, director of legal information services for the New York State Defenders Association, has this essay online at law.com.

“Cigarette fee upheld; door open for tax relief; Court says ’98 settlement doesn’t ban new charges on smokers”: The St. Paul Pioneer Press contains this article today.

And The Minneapolis Star Tribune today contains articles headlined “State court upholds tobacco fee; The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the 75-cents-per-pack cigarette fee is legal; Legislative leaders say the funds will preserve the chances for property tax relief” and “Though expected, ruling draws strong reactions; Smokers and their suppliers denounced the decision; Health advocates praised it as a saver of money and lives,” along with an editorial entitled “A good and timely tobacco-fee ruling: Court decision is good for taxpayers and public health.”

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

“Boyle waits for 4th Circuit spot”: This article appears today in The Herald-Sun of Durham, North Carolina.

“Kline will appeal in teen-sex case”: The Wichita Eagle today contains an article that begins, “Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline on Tuesday formally filed notice that he’ll appeal a federal judge’s ruling on the sexual privacy of teenagers.”

“Ethics panel: Justice didn’t violate code; Senator released plan to fund schools a day after meeting with McFarland.” The Topeka Capital-Journal today contains an article that begins, “A judicial ethics panel found nothing inappropriate about a lunch meeting Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice Kay McFarland had last month with an influential state lawmaker, according to a Topeka man who made the complaint against the judge.”

“51 months in prison for Hatch; Citing his perjury, a federal judge adds to the penalty the Survivor star faced for tax evasion”: The Providence Journal contains this article today.

“Vacancy may offer platform for Romney Appeals Court chief to retire”: The Boston Globe today contains an article that begins, “With the head of the Massachusetts Appeals Court poised to retire in July, many in the state’s legal community predict that Governor Mitt Romney will fill the most prominent judgeship likely to become vacant in his tenure with someone whose background will showcase Romney’s conservative bona fides for a possible presidential bid in 2008.”

The Hartford Courant is reporting: In today’s newspaper, Lynne Tuohy has an article headlined “Changes In Court Task Force; Two Judges Replaced On Panel Examining Access To Records.”

And in other news, “Judge’s Defenders Counterattack; Protest Lawyers’ Anonymous ‘Smear’ Of Federal Court Nominee.”

“Witness Indicates Malvo’s Cooperation With Police; Sniper Implicated Muhammad, Md. Court Is Told”: The Washington Post contains this article today.

And The Baltimore Sun today contains articles headlined “Malvo helping prosecution; He has implicated Muhammad, police sergeant says at sniper trial” and “Jurors to see ‘deadly Caprice.’”

“Enron Defense Sums Up Its Case; Closing Statements Rife With Emotion”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

The New York Times today contains an article headlined “Fiery Plea by Defense in Houston.”

The Los Angeles Times contains an article headlined “Passionate Pitch by Enron Defense.”

In The Houston Chronicle, Mary Flood reports that “This time, prosecution’s in hot seat; Defense says the government went after its prize, building a case on ‘radioactive’ witnesses.” And an article reports that “Jury resisting manipulation, consultant says; Group is most engaged by facts, not the broader themes, she says.”

USA Today reports that “Enron defense goes out in style; Dramatic closing caps long case.”

The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Enron judge eases way to guilty ruling; Judge Sim Lake said that the act of ignoring red flags can be criminal, stunning the legal community.”

Yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Skilling-Lay Attorneys Make Final Arguments.”

And today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “Defense Delivers Passionate Rebuttal of Enron Prosecution.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“The EBay effect: Supreme Court ruling on auction pioneer could usher in long-overdue patent reform.” The Los Angeles Times contains this editorial today.

“Same-Sex Marriage Amendment Is Struck Down by Georgia Judge”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

And The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports today that “Georgia’s gay marriage ban voided; Unconstitutional in state, county judge rules.”

“A Prominent Law Firm Prepares for Indictment”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “For years, the securities class-action law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman sparked fear and uncertainty in executive suites and corporate boardrooms across the country.”

And The Los Angeles Times today contains an article headlined “A Bid by Milberg to Avert Charges? Two partners’ departure may be an effort to save the law firm from a kickback indictment; But even a milder legal action could cripple it.”

“Retribution Without Cruelty: The Supreme Court Considers an Eighth Amendment Challenge to Lethal Injections.” Sherry F. Colb today has this essay online at FindLaw.