“Guantanamo Bay detainees have rights. Now what?” The Associated Press provides this report.

One year later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit again holds that the Tampa Sports Authority should be allowed to conduct pat-down searches of all ticket holders seeking to attend Tampa Bay Buccaneers home games: The Eleventh Circuit today issued this ruling on panel rehearing.

Back on June 26, 2007, the same three-judge panel issued an opinion reaching the same result. My coverage of that ruling appears at this link.

I criticized the panel’s original ruling in an installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com headlined “Did a Federal Appeals Court Avoid Tackling the Real Issues Behind Football Fan’s Lawsuit? 11th Circuit rules that season ticket-holder can’t object to being searched upon entering stadium.” At first glance, it appears that my criticism of that ruling remains applicable to today’s ruling on panel rehearing.

“This is a patent infringement case pertaining to wall-mounted telephones designed for use by prison inmates.” So begins a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued today.

“Your boss shouldn’t read your text or e-mail messages without an OK, court says; The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules in favor of an Ontario police officer whose messages were obtained by the Police Department and reviewed without his permission”: Maura Dolan will have this article Thursday in The Los Angeles Times.

The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin provides a news update headlined “Court rules Ontario police violated officers’ privacy.”

And at Electronic Frontier Foundation’s “Deeplinks Blog,” Jennifer Granick has a post titled “New Ninth Circuit Case Protects Text Message Privacy From Police and Employers.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

First Circuit can’t duck this trademark infringement dispute: Boston Business Journal has a news update headlined “Super Duck Excursions gains in fight against Boston Duck Tours” that begins, “Super Duck Excursions can return to using ‘duck tours’ in its marketing material and its logo of a cartoon duck, after a preliminary injunction was overturned Wednesday.”

You can access today’s lengthy ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit at this link.

Slow news day: ABA Journal has a post titled “Legal Blogger Auditions for ‘Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?’”

Programming note: My son and I will be at Citizens Bank Park this afternoon to see the Philadelphia Phillies host the Boston Red Sox. A preview of the pitching match-up can be accessed here while previews of the game can be accessed via this link. Additional posts will appear later today.

“Campaigns in a Skirmish Over Terrorism and Law”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

And The Washington Post reports today that “Candidates Clash on Terrorism; In Sharp Exchange, Each Side Calls Other’s Position a Risk.”

“The Court McCain Wants”: Today in The Washington Post, columnist Ruth Marcus has an op-ed that begins, “Conservatives, seizing on the Supreme Court’s ruling last week on Guantanamo detainees, want to turn the court into election fodder. I hope they succeed.”

“Ex-Bush Aide Gets New Trial on Appeal; Judges Toss Charges Against Safavian, Convicted in 2006 in Abramoff Scandal”: The Washington Post contains this article today.

The New York Times reports today that “Appeals Court Overturns Conviction of a Former Official Linked to Abramoff.”

And McClatchy Newspapers report that “Appellate court tosses out key conviction in Abramoff case.”

You can access at this link yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

“CIA Played Larger Role In Advising Pentagon; Harsh Interrogation Methods Defended”: This front page article appears today in The Washington Post.

Also today in The Washington Post, Dana Milbank’s “Washington Sketch” column is headlined “Abu Ghraib? Doesn’t Ring a Bell.” It begins, “If ever there was a case that cried out for enhanced interrogation techniques, it was yesterday’s Senate appearance by the Pentagon’s former top lawyer. William ‘Jim’ Haynes II, the man who blessed the use of dogs, hoods and nudity to pry information out of recalcitrant detainees, proved to be a model of evasion himself as he resisted all attempts at inquiry by the Armed Services Committee.”

And The New York Times reports today that “Notes Show Confusion on Interrogation Methods.”

“Claim Over Red Cross Symbol Is Settled”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “The American Red Cross and Johnson & Johnson, the health care conglomerate, announced Tuesday that they had settled a longstanding dispute over use of the Red Cross trademark. The two sides announced the settlement a month after Judge Jed S. Rakoff of Federal District Court in Manhattan threw out much of J.& J.’s trademark claim against the relief organization.”

This blog’s earlier coverage of that ruling appears at this link.

“BCE’s fate in court’s hands”: Today’s edition of The Toronto Globe and Mail contains an article that begins, “Guy Du Pont had 40 minutes to sell Canada’s largest takeover to the country’s highest court Tuesday, and it wasn’t an easy ride. BCE Inc.’s battle to save its $35-billion takeover had taken it all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, and for its last say the company gave the floor to the Montreal constitutional and corporate lawyer, a new recruit to its large legal team, to see whether he could get the deal back on track.”

Today’s newspaper also contains an article headlined “The country’s hottest ticket — BCE and the Supremes.”

Death and Texas: The Houston Chronicle reports today that “Austin judge finds inmate sane enough for execution; More appeals are likely in the landmark case.”

And news from a case involving another death row inmate, The Austin American-Statesman reports today that “After legal wrangle, state halts execution; Death warrant suspended, reinstated, suspended again.”

“Mr. Bush v. the Bill of Rights”: The New York Times contains this editorial today.

“Court upholds 24-month prison term for ex-Westar executive”: This article appears today in The Kansas City Star.

And The Topeka Capital-Journal today contains an article headlined “Court to Wittig: Go back to prison; Wittig loses sentencing appeal, expected to serve 12 more months.”

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

“Mukasey Oversees Role Reversal of Prosecutors, Defense”: Joseph Goldstein has this interesting article today in The New York Sun.

“Palimony ruling sets precedent in Jersey; Justices: Cohabitation is not the only factor.” Today’s edition of The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger contains an article that begins, “In a decision described as the first of its type in the nation, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a couple does not have to live together in order for one partner to sue the other for palimony after a breakup.”

And law.com reports that “Cohabitation Not a Requirement for Palimony Claim, Says N.J. Supreme Court.”

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

“Has Judge Kozinski’s View of Blogs Changed?” This post appears today at “Patterico’s Pontifications.”

The answer to that question is “yes,” and the implication is that he thinks much more highly of the medium now.