“Head-scratching follows Garcetti ruling”: Tony Mauro has this news analysis online at the First Amendment Center.

“Gay marriage looms as ‘battle of our times’; As Senate prepares to argue marriage amendment, room for compromise between religious freedom and equal rights seems thin”: This article will appear Thursday in The Christian Science Monitor.

“Globalizing the Legal Blogosphere”: Duncan Hollis has this post at “Opinio Juris.” Even more information about from where readers are accessing “How Appealing” can be obtained via this link.

“Little impact here, expert says”: The Sacramento Bee today contains an article that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court decision that places boundaries on freedom of speech rights for whistle-blowing government workers figures to have little or no impact on California state employees, a leading legal expert said Tuesday.”

“Prosecutor says case put her in a ‘different world’; For the past 2 years, she’s been consumed — by Lay, Skilling and everything Enron”: This article appears today in The Houston Chronicle.

“The principal question presented by this appeal is whether a special condition of parole that prohibited the possession of ‘pornographic material’ would have given notice to a reasonable parolee who had been convicted of sexual crimes involving minors, or his parole officer, that the condition prohibited possession of the book Scum: True Homosexual Experiences, which contains sexually explicit pictures and lurid descriptions of sex between men and boys.” So begins a 45-page opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.

“U.S. judge is pressed for ruling on T-shirt; Poway student and district at odds over anti-gay slogan”: Last Saturday, as I earlier noted here, The San Diego Union-Tribune published this article.

Today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order announcing some small amendments to the panel’s original ruling in that case. My earlier coverage of that ruling appears here and here. Today’s order notes that “Appellants’ petition for rehearing en banc is still pending before this court.”

“Gay Marriage Amendment: Case Closed; Senate Republicans trade federalism for demogoguery.” Jonathan Rauch has this essay online today at Reason.

And today at National Review Online, Ruben Diaz has an essay entitled “Let Legislators Be Legislators: Marriage matters.”

“Ala. Candidates Revive Judicial Debate”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “In a debate with powerful echoes of the turbulent civil rights era, four Republicans running for Alabama’s Supreme Court are making an argument legal scholars thought was settled in the 1800s: that state courts are not bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedents.”

The Montgomery Advertiser reports today that “Supreme Court candidates disagree on philosophy.”

And The Mobile Press-Register reported yesterday that “Challenger makes issue of abortion.”

Appellate audio-visual selections: The Court of Appeals of New York, that State’s highest court, has just begun hearing oral arguments in the consolidated same-sex marriage cases. You can view the oral arguments, scheduled to last for two hours, live online by clicking here (Windows Media format).

For those who are more interested in the inner workings of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, C-SPAN2 is currently broadcasting a discussion with the en banc court from the recent Federal Circuit Judicial Conference, moderated by attorney Carter G. Phillips, about the court’s docket, work loads, rules and decision-making processes, etc. [Update: C-SPAN2’s broadcast of this program has concluded.]

Over the dissent of three judges, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denies rehearing en banc of case in which three-judge panel had affirmed the dismissal of a patent infringement suit against maker of “The Club” vehicle anti-theft device: Today’s order denying rehearing en banc, accompanied by a dissenting opinion, can be accessed here. The original three-judge panel today also issued an order denying panel rehearing but clarifying its earlier decision on the merits.

“Ireland plans swift new rape law after man freed”: Reuters provides a report that begins, “Ireland plans to rush new laws on rape through parliament next week after a Supreme Court ruling left open a loophole that allowed a man convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl to be freed. The Supreme Court ruled last week that a 1935 law on statutory rape, under which any man who has sex with a girl under the age of 15 is automatically guilty of a crime, was unconstitutional.”

The Associated Press reports that “Judge Overturns Underage Sex Conviction.”

BBC News reports that “High Court frees ‘child rapist’; The High Court in Dublin has ruled that a 41-year-old man, convicted of the statutory rape of a 12-year-old girl, should be released.”

The Irish Times reports today that “Statutory rape law to be rushed through the Dail.” And yesterday, the newspaper reported that “State opposes release of man jailed for raping 12-year-old.”

The Irish Examiner reported last Saturday that “Underage sex ruling nightmare unfolds.”

And The Sunday Times of London reported that “Same age sex to be legal at 14.”

You can access last week’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Ireland at this link.

The Times of London is reporting: Today’s newspaper contains articles headlined “Privacy row puts flights to US at risk” and “Criticism of judges is ‘an own goal for government.’”

“Signatures Handed In to Repeal Abortion Ban; South Dakota activists gather twice the number required to force a vote on a measure that outlawed the procedure even after incest or rape”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, South Dakota today contains articles headlined “Abortion petitions in; two issues rejected; 38,000 signatures turned in to put ban before voters; Foes, advocates see opportunity“; “Petition challenge will be considered“; and “Tribal council outlaws abortion; President suspended for alleged donations.”

And The Rapid City Journal reports that “Abortion-law challenge filed.”

“Court says no to Hale’s bid to leave jail early”: The Chicago Sun-Times today contains an article that begins, “A federal appeals court Tuesday rejected white supremacist Matt Hale’s bid for a break in his 40-year prison sentence, ruling there was ample evidence he ordered a hit on a Chicago federal judge.”

And The Peoria Journal Star reports today that “Court upholds Hale decision; Former East Peorian’s conviction for murder solicitation will stand.”

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“Librarians Shushed No More; Silenced Employees Finally Speak Out About Secretive FBI Letter On Internet Records”: Lynne Tuohy has this article today in The Hartford Courant.

And The New York Times reports today that “Four Librarians Finally Break Silence in Records Case.”

“Court Curbs the Speech of Public Employees; Justices rule that the 1st Amendment doesn’t shield public-sector whistle-blowers”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

Today in USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Whistle-blowers in public jobs dealt a blow by Supreme Court; First Amendment doesn’t shield workers ‘in their official duties.’”

The Washington Times reports that “Justices ease whistleblower protections.”

And The New York Times contains an editorial entitled “Blow the Whistle, Loudly.”

“Landing in an O.C. Court, This IOU Was Red All Over”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Hurdle for U.S. in Getting Data on Passengers”: The New York Times contains this article today.

And The Washington Post reports today that “U.S.-Europe Passenger Agreement Is Voided.”

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“Guilty verdict in sniper rampage; Malvo’s testimony key for jurors who convict Muhammad of killing six in Md.” This article appears today in The Baltimore Sun, along with articles headlined “Victims’ relatives share pain of trial, joy of verdict” and “More trials hinge on Va. permission; No other states have begun process to get custody of Muhammad, Malvo.”

The Washington Post reports today that “Muhammad Found Guilty on All Counts.”

The New York Times reports that “Washington-Area Sniper Convicted of 6 More Killings.”

And The Washington Times reports that “Muhammad found guilty of six Maryland murders.”

“New Vehicle for Dissent Is a Fast Track to Prison; Bloggers Held Under Egypt’s Emergency Laws”: The Washington Post contains this article today.

“Specter, Leahy make final attempt at asbestos measure”: This article appears today in The Hill.

“Supreme Court to Weigh Award in a Smoker’s Death”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.

Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “High court to clarify limits on punitive damages; Ruling in smoker’s case to decide if awards are excessive.”

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Justices to review $79.5M award to smoker’s widow.”

The Oregonian reports that “High court will review tobacco case from Oregon; Justices will examine a Portland jury’s $79.5 million punitive award in a janitor’s cancer death.”

And law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “Supreme Court Will Hear Case on High Punitive Damages; In opinion, justices narrow First Amendment protections for government whistleblowers.”

“The Nine Lives of a Topless Bar: Complaints Hit a Wall of Law.” This article appears today in The New York Times.