“Analysis: Ninth review of Texas death issues?” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

My earlier coverage of the Fifth Circuit’s en banc ruling can be accessed at this link.

“Delay Denied, Libby Is Seen as Weeks From Prison”: Neil A. Lewis has this article today in The New York Times.

The Washington Post today contains a front page article headlined “Libby Loses Bid to Stay Out of Jail For Appeal.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Libby’s request to delay prison is denied; The former Cheney aide, who is appealing perjury and obstruction convictions, may be behind bars in weeks; His judge gets angry letters.”

The Washington Times reports that “Libby denied bond, will appeal from behind bars.”

And Thursday’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment featuring Nina Totenberg entitled “Libby Ordered to Prison While Awaiting Appeal” (RealPlayer required).

“Attorney general: Wilson ruling could free molesters.” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution today contains an article that begins, “The 10-year prison sentence imposed on Genarlow Wilson for receiving oral sex from a 15-year-old girl when he was 17 is ‘harsh,’ but his punishment must stand to protect the law and keep more than 1,000 child molesters behind bars, Attorney General Thurbert Baker declared Thursday.” And Saturday’s newspaper will contain an article headlined “Wilson’s legal tactics challenged.”

Today’s newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Taping over justice: Prosecutors in Genarlow Wilson case overstep bounds in effort to defend themselves, their case.” And Ken Wynne has an op-ed entitled “It’s Wilson’s fault he’s in jail; AG, DA have no choice but to uphold law.”

“Court rules on anonymous tips to cops; Police don’t need evidence before they go to suspect’s home”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

And The San Diego Union-Tribune reports today that “Ruling on searches backs up officers; Court decision stems from Oceanside arrest.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Supreme Court of California ruling appears at this link.

“Right of gays to marry set for years to come; Vote keeps proposed ban off 2008 state ballot”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe, along with articles headlined “Mass. may inspire advocates in other states to action“; “Personal stories changed minds“; and “Fear and then, ‘I can’t believe it’; Gay activists jubilant after the quick vote.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “A good day for marriage,” and columnist Scot Lehigh has an op-ed entitled “A victory for equality.”

The New York Times reports today that “Massachusetts Gay Marriage to Remain Legal.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Gay-marriage ban won’t go to Massachusetts voters; Legislators block a ballot proposal for a constitutional amendment to override the ruling that made the state the only one to allow the practice.”

The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts reports that “Marriage referendum dead.”

The Boston Herald contains articles headlined “Same-sex wed foes: We’ll keep fighting” and “Pols shift sides to KO ban on gay marriage.”

And The Washington Times reports that “Massachusetts marriage amendment fails.”

“Supreme court holds fast to legal deadlines; Even a judge’s error is no excuse to file a late motion, justices say in 5-4 ruling”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“This case presents a novel question: does the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have a nonstatutory cause of action, grounded in its sovereign authority under the Constitution, to obtain information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation in connection with a criminal investigation into the activities of FBI employees?” So begins the lead opinion of a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued today. Although the panel is unanimous in rejecting Puerto Rico’s lawsuit, each of the three judges on the panel has issued his own opinion.

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Duke DA Says He Will Resign” and “Ruling Opens U.S. to Foreign Retaliation.”

Why is Justice David H. Souter citing Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 6(b)(2)(B) in his dissent in Bowles v. Russell, No. 06-5306? Justice Souter cites that procedural rule in footnote 9 of his dissenting opinion. The footnote states, in full:

At first glance it may seem unreasonable for counsel to wait until the penultimate day under the judge’s order, filing a notice of appeal being so easy that counsel should not have needed the extra time. But as Bowles’s lawyer pointed out at oral argument, filing the notice of appeal starts the clock for filing the record, see Fed. Rule App. Proc. 6(b)(2)(B), which in turn starts the clock for filing a brief, see Rule 31(a)(1), for which counsel might reasonably want as much time as possible. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 6. A good lawyer plans ahead, and Bowles had a good lawyer.

The reason FRAP 6 is inapplicable is that that rule, by its own terms, only applies to appeals in bankruptcy cases. The rule is titled “Appeal in a Bankruptcy Case from a Final Judgment, Order, or Decree of a District Court or a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.” The Bowles case, by contrast, involves a non-bankruptcy habeas corpus appeal. Justice Souter should have instead been citing to either FRAP 10 or FRAP 11.

“Martignon Reversed”: William Patry has this post at “The Patry Copyright Blog.”

My earlier coverage of Wednesday’s Second Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Public unions suffer setback over fees”: Tony Mauro has this analysis online today at the First Amendment Center.

“Duke DA Says He ‘Maybe Got Carried Away'”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “District Attorney Mike Nifong acknowledged Friday that he ‘maybe got carried away a little bit’ in talking about the three Duke University lacrosse players who were once charged with raping a stripper. He also said he expects to be punished.”

And The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina provides an update headlined “Nifong defends actions in lacrosse case.”

“Solicitor General’s Tricky Shoals: Conservative Stalwart Faces Defining Moment in Justice Probe.” Today in The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin has an article (pass-through link) that begins, “Now that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales survived Monday’s no-confidence motion in the Senate, the spotlight could shift to an unlikely player in the months-long controversy over the firing of U.S. attorneys: Solicitor General Paul Clement. Over the past six years, Mr. Clement, 40 years old, has become one of the conservative legal movement’s brightest stars. He has been praised by Republicans and Democrats for his skill as he defended some of the Bush administration’s toughest positions. Some predict he may follow the path of previous solicitors general, including Robert Jackson and Thurgood Marshall, to a seat on the Supreme Court. Now, however, the Justice Department controversies have thrown Mr. Clement a curve. As the highest-ranking Justice official not involved in the firings, he is charged with overseeing the department’s investigations into the matter. The solicitor general’s regular job is pondering the great questions of law and, dressed in a traditional morning coat, arguing on the government’s behalf before the Supreme Court. It is only on rare occasions the solicitor general is dragged directly into the political fray, becoming acting attorney general when his superiors are disqualified from exercising their authority.”

“Scooter Libby’s Appeal: The Focus Shifts To the Highly Political U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.” John W. Dean has this essay online today at FindLaw.

The attacks of 9/11 as “manifest necessity” for a mistrial in an Ohio state court burglary prosecution: An Ohio state court trial judge may have thought that he was promoting the interests of justice when he declared a mistrial on September 11, 2001 of a jury trial on charges of burglary. The defendant, however, thereafter argued that the mistrial gave rise to a double jeopardy defense precluding any retrial on the charges, because in the defendant’s view the mistrial was not required by “manifest necessity.”

Although the Ohio state court appellate system rejected the defendant’s assertion of double jeopardy, a federal district court exercising habeas corpus review agreed with the defendant and granted habeas relief. Today, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reverses, thereby upholding the conviction. You can access today’s ruling at this link.

In dissent, Circuit Judge Ronald Lee Gilman writes: “Certainly, the trial judge’s instincts to safeguard Walls’s presumptive innocence are laudable. But attempting to understand how the attacks of September 11 would have prejudiced the jury against Walls strains the imagination. The two have nothing in common. Hijacking jetliners for use as guided missiles versus robbing a residence at gunpoint, although both violent criminal acts, are otherwise incomparable. The September 11 terrorists sought the death of American lives and the destruction of recognizable symbols of American power. Walls’s alleged actions sought only money. The terrorists’ attacks killed approximately 3,000 people. Walls’s alleged actions resulted in no deaths at all. Finally, regarding more tangible indices such as physical appearance that typically account for ‘spillover effect,’ those responsible for the September 11 attacks were of Middle Eastern origin and Islamic beliefs. Nothing in the record indicates that Lawrence Walls was of either.”

“We are aware of only two cases in the federal courts of appeals addressing the question whether a party has waived the psychotherapist-patient privilege.” So states the decision, issued today, of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. As a result of today’s ruling, the number of cases discussing waiver of that privilege increases to three.

“Retired justice O’Connor has a lot on her docket; Seeks to renew faith in courts”: Joan Biskupic has this article today in USA Today.

“Justices curb unions’ political use of fees; Public employee groups need a member’s explicit approval before use dues for advocacy, Supreme Court rules unanimously”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

In today’s edition of USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Supreme Court upholds fee burden on unions; Non-members can stay apolitical.”

The Seattle Times reports that “Court rules against unions in fee case.”

And The Washington Times reports that “States can put rules on use of union fees.”

“U.S. Supreme Court Supports New York City’s Effort to Collect Taxes on Some U.N. Missions”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.

And today in The New York Sun, Joseph Goldstein has an article headlined “Tax Win for City at High Court; U.N. Missions ‘Must Pay Their Fair Share.’”

“Southwick vote postponed; Key Republican seeks time to sway Dems to send nomination to Senate floor”: This article appears today in The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi.

And CQ Today reports that “Judiciary Chairman Says Court Nominee Will Not Get Out of Committee.”