“Hundreds of inmate terms at stake in 2 cases in S.F.; Justices weigh judges’ sentencing power after U.S. high court ruling”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

“The Attack Ads Will Come to Order”: Today in The Washington Post, columnist Ruth Marcus has this judicial election-related op-ed.

“From Jail, a Panhandler Fights New York’s Loitering Law as a Violation of Free Speech”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

“Interrogation Methods Are Criticized”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “As the Bush administration completes secret new rules governing interrogations, a group of experts advising the intelligence agencies are arguing that the harsh techniques used since the 2001 terrorist attacks are outmoded, amateurish and unreliable.”

“Pakistan’s Suspended Justice Tells of Facing Down Musharraf”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

And The Washington Post reports today that “Ousted Pakistani Judge Describes Confrontation.”

“Oral Dissents Give Justice a New Voice”: Linda Greenhouse will have this article Thursday in The New York Times.

“The High Court Lays an Anonymous Egg”: Syndicated columnist James J. Kilpatrick has this essay today.

“Drug Risks and Free Speech — Can Congress Ban Consumer Drug Ads?” Miriam Shuchman, M.D. has this essay online at The New England Journal of Medicine.

“Justice Department investigators broaden their inquiry”: McClatchy Newspapers provide this report.

“Dictum, Judicial Modesty, and Judicial Efficiency”: Eugene Volokh has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Commentary: Cameras and inter-branch comity.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Bad Think: The Supreme Court mixes up intending to screw over your employee and actually doing it.” Law Professor Richard Thompson Ford has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

The Associated Press is reporting: An article headlined “Foster Parents in Custody Fight Appeal” begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to hear the case of an American couple trying to prevent an 8-year-old girl they raised since infancy from being returned to her Chinese parents.”

And an article headlined “Accused Madam’s Delay Request Is Denied” begins, “The Supreme Court on Wednesday denied a request to delay the criminal case against a woman accused of running a prostitution ring in the nation’s capital.”

“Breyer shares wit, wisdom; During Albany lecture, U.S. Supreme Court associate justice praises key role of Constitution”: The Times Union of Albany, New York contains this article today.

“‘De facto’ parent’s visitation on trial; High court to hear plea of ex-partner to see adopted girl”: This article appears today in The Baltimore Sun.

“Repeal likely for abortion law; Parental notification gets a terse hearing”: The Concord (N.H.) Monitor today contains an article that begins, “Next week, the debate over the state’s parental-notification law could draw to a close. Several months after the House voted to repeal the contested statute – which the U.S. Supreme Court rejected last year – the Democratic-controlled Senate appears likely to follow suit. Gov. John Lynch has said that he would sign the bill.”

“Daughter of Supreme Court justice pleads guilty to DUI”: The Chicago Tribune provides this news update.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit holds that the State of New Hampshire cannot prevent national banks and national thrifts from selling giftcards that carry expiration dates or are subject to administrative fees: You can access today’s ruling at this link.

“Justice Dept. probe expanded on hiring practices”: Reuters provides this report.

“Joint Effort: Sens. Webb, Warner Are Right To Work Together.” Yesterday’s issue of The Daily News Record of Harrisonburg, Virginia contained an editorial that begins, “Whether the Senate can agree to a bipartisan deal on immigration reform is up in the air but, hopefully, Virginia’s two senators can agree to a bipartisan deal about circuit court judges.”

“Suit seeks $5,000 in damages from Wal-Mart over vomit incident”: The Quad-City Times of Davenport, Iowa contains this article today.

“Democrats Seek to Overturn Pay Ruling”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Congressional Democrats said Wednesday they would try to reverse a Supreme Court decision that limits the time that workers have to sue their employers for pay discrimination.”

“The SEC, the Supreme Court, and Enron”: This post appears today at “The Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Blog.”

“Eighth Circuit Adds to Circuit Split on Reassignment”: At his “Disability Law” blog, Law Professor Sam Bagenstos has a post that begins, “Today, in Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, the Eighth Circuit ruled that the ADA requires that an employee with a disability be reassigned to a vacant position as an accommodation only if the employee is the most qualified applicant for that position. This decision adds to a longstanding circuit split on the question.”

Today’s rulings of note from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: The court issued three rulings of note today.

1. The daughter of Orson Welles sued Turner Entertainment and others seeking a declaratory judgment that she owns the copyright and home video rights to the motion picture “Citizen Kane.” The federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. Today, in a decision that you can access here, the Ninth Circuit has reinstated Beatrice Welles’s claim for profit participation.

2. “The majority finds appellate jurisdiction in this case only by mistakenly assuming that if any issue decided by the district court is subject to interlocutory appeal, any other issue decided in the same order can also be reached on interlocutory appeal.” So begins a dissenting opinion that Senior Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima issued today. You can access the Ninth Circuit’s 2-1 ruling in the case at this link.

3. Finally, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts might wish to adjust its revenue projections to reflect that it won’t be receiving a $25 processing fee to offset the costs of managing petty offense cases in the federal courts if the petty offense in question resulted from a traffic ticket at the Fort Lewis Army Base. You can access today’s ruling at this link.

“Senators Should Reject Bush’s Latest Nominee to 5th Circuit”: The organization People For the American Way issued this statement today.

“Justices’ Ruling Limits Suits on Pay Disparity”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times. And Steven Greenhouse reports that “Experts Say Decision on Pay Reorders Legal Landscape.”

Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has a front page article headlined “Over Ginsburg’s Dissent, Court Limits Bias Suits.” Barnes will host an online chat about the ruling online at washingtonpost.com at 1 p.m. eastern time today.

In The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that “Only fresh bias counts, court rules; A divided Supreme Court says years-old evidence of job discrimination cannot be the basis of a lawsuit.”

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic has articles headlined “Time limit put on pay-bias lawsuits; Divided court rules claims must be filed within 180 days” and “Alito, Ginsburg opinions highlight court’s division; Business groups hail ruling that civil rights activists say is setback.”

The Chicago Tribune reports that “Justices restrict pay bias lawsuits; Split Supreme Court rules for employers.”

The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that “Employee loses pay bias case; Supreme Court rules 5-4 that the worker waited too long to complain.”

law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “Supreme Court Limits Time Frame for Filing EEOC Claims.”

And on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “Supreme Court Sets Limits on Sex Discrimination Suits.”