“U.S. judge says no to group’s bid to join Soledad cross case”: This article appears today in The San Diego Union-Tribune.

Access online the audio from today’s Ninth Circuit rehearing en banc oral argument in Doe v. Kamehameha Schools: The audio file can be accessed here (Windows Media format; 9.82 MB audio file; right-click to download to your computer).

The Honolulu Advertiser provides a news update headlined “Kamehameha Schools case heard in San Francisco.” And that newspaper has posted the rehearing oral argument audio in mp3 format (37.9 MB audio file).

“The Client Who Became a Suspect”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Dahlia Lithwick appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day.”

“The issue presented in this appeal is whether Florida’s manual recount procedures in those counties employing paperless touchscreen voting machines violate the rights of voters in those counties to equal protection and due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” So begins an opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued today.

“We are required in this case to determine whether Congress has authority under its power ‘[t]o regulate Commerce … among the Several states,’ U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3, to prohibit the intrastate possession by a felon of a bulletproof vest, in the absence of any commercial transaction or any evidence of a connection to commercial activity other than the fact that, before it was lawfully purchased by the defendant, the vest had been sold across a state line.” So writes Circuit Judge Michael W. McConnell in an opinion issued today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The opinion concludes Congress does have that authority under the Commerce Clause.

Seventh Circuit affirms grant of summary judgment holding manufacturer of football goalpost not liable to college student rendered paraplegic when, after joining crowd to tear down the goalpost, the post fell on the student’s back: Today’s opinion notes that “There are very few cases about goalposts being torn down [citations omitted], and none is informative here.”

The opinion also notes that David Letterman‘s alma mater bears much blame for the accident: “As both parties agree, Ball State itself encouraged the crowd to pull down goalposts with a flashing sign on the scoreboard that read, ‘The goalpost looks lonely.’ Indeed, the school had earlier resolved that controlling the crowd might prove even more dangerous than letting it tear down the goalposts. (Ball State is not a party now because it settled for a paltry $300,000, a limit imposed by state tort reform in the 1970s.)”

Res ipsa non loquitur: Today a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion rejecting a plaintiff’s claim of res ipsa loquitur under Indiana law.

Dead judges voting — En banc Third Circuit vacates decision examining the so-called “ministerial exception” to Title VII and assigns case to reconstituted three-judge panel containing two randomly-assigned replacement judges: According to today’s en banc order, the original majority now consists of a deceased judge (which was already the case when the opinion issued) and a judge as to whom “circumstances have arisen” requiring his recusal. As a result, the original three-judge panel’s ruling has been vacated, and a new three-judge panel (retaining only the dissenting judge from the original panel) will rehear and determine the case.

My earlier posts about this case and the subject of dead judges voting can be accessed here, here, here, and here.

“Penile plethysmograph testing is a procedure that ‘involves placing a pressure-sensitive device around a man’s penis, presenting him with an array of sexually stimulating images, and determining his level of sexual attraction by measuring minute changes in his erectile responses.'” So begins an opinion that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

The majority opinion, written by Circuit Judge Marsha S. Berzon, does not hold that plethysmograph testing can never be used as a condition of supervised release for a criminal defendant convicted of possessing child pornography. By contrast, Senior Circuit Judge John T. Noonan, Jr., in a separate opinion, states that he would hold that the procedure is unlawful in all instances.

In news releases available online from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Yesterday the court issued news releases entitled “Senate Confirms Sandra S. Ikuta for Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals” and “Judicial Conference Focuses on Top Issues, Welcomes Justices.”

“Home of Suspect in Judge Slaying Searched”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Police found bomb materials and ammunition in the bedroom of a man accused of killing his estranged wife and shooting a family court judge, according to court documents.” Because the judge who was shot was neither killed nor, presumably, delighted or amused immensely, I must question The AP’s use of “slaying” in its headline.

“Split Supreme Court Narrows Use of Wetlands Act”: Jess Bravin and Ben Winograd have this article (pass-through link) today in The Wall Street Journal.

Programming note: My day job will have me off-line this afternoon. Additional posts will appear here this evening.

“School’s policy rehearing today”: The Honolulu Advertiser today contains an article that begins, “For at least an hour this morning, a federal appeals court panel of 15 judges is expected to grill lawyers on whether Kamehameha Schools’ admission policy of giving preference to applicants with Hawaiian blood violates federal civil rights laws.” After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit posts the audio file of the en banc reargument online, I will link to it.

“Courts & the Law: Supreme Confidence.” Columnist Kenneth Jost has this essay in this week’s issue of CQ Weekly.

On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “High Court Splits on Clean Water Act Case” (featuring Nina Totenberg) and “High Court Rules on 911 Calls as Evidence.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Mack’s room held bomb parts”: The Reno Gazette-Journal contains this article today.

“Court ruling knocks off a constitutional right; Fourth Amendment takes a whipping at the hands of Supreme Court”: This editorial appears today in The Tennessean.

The St. Petersburg Times today contains an editorial entitled “Evidence of change: Last week’s Supreme Court ruling hints at an assault on privacy rights.”

The Times Union of Albany, New York contains an editorial entitled “Knocking rights: The U.S. Supreme Court gives police more leeway to enter and search a residence.”

And today in The New York Times, columnist John Tierney has an op-ed entitled “The SWAT Syndrome” (TimesSelect subscription required).

“Justices Divided on Protections Over Wetlands”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times. The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Clean Water at Risk.”

In The Washington Post, Charles Lane reports today that “Justices Rein In Clean Water Act; Still-Divided Court Leaves Reach of The Law Unclear.”

In The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that “Divided Supreme Court Upholds Federal Protections for Wetlands.”

In The Boston Globe, Charlie Savage reports that “Clean Water Act ruling illustrates court’s shift.”

In The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Justices wade into Clean Water Act; High court sets some limits on federal control of wetlands.”

The Washington Times reports that “Court favors builders in wetlands dispute.”

law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “Supreme Court Splits Sharply on Wetlands Protections; Over government objection, justices grant review in second case testing partial-birth abortion ban.”

In The Houston Chronicle, Patty Reinert reports that “Court splintered on wetlands protection; Two Michigan cases sent back to lower jurisdictions.”

The Detroit Free Press reports that “High court muddies wetlands rules; 2 Michigan developers get new chance.”

The Detroit News contains an article headlined “Muddied waters: Split U.S. High Court kicks back fate of wetlands development to Mich.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Supreme Court bungles Michigan wetlands cases; In split ruling, U.S. justices leave the law unclear.”

The St. Petersburg Times reports that “Justices open wetlands wars; The high court splits three ways, leaving wetlands battles to be decided ‘case by case.’”

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that “Justices muddy wetlands issue with split ruling.”

The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, South Dakota reports that “Ruling not likely to harm S.D. wetlands; ‘Swampbuster’ law keeps prairie potholes safe.”

And The Chicago Tribune contains an editorial entitled “Fens and federalism.”

“911 Call Is Held as Evidence if Victim Cannot Testify”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.

Today in The Washington Post, Charles Lane reports that “Absent Accusers’ 911 Calls Ruled Admissible.”

In The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that “High Court Limits Domestic Abuse Crime Reports as Trial Testimony; Out-of-court statements can’t be used to bring charges, justices say, but a call to 911 can.”

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Justices draw a line on what evidence is admissible.”

The Seattle Times reports that “911 calls allowed in court, even if accuser won’t testify, Supreme Court rules.”

And The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that “911 calls backed as evidence; Tapes can provide help in domestic violence cases.”

“Supreme Court Upholds Spot Searches of Parolees; Justices rule on California law that lets officers conduct searches without reasonable suspicion of a crime”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

And today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “California parolee search law upheld.”

“Shredding a constitutional protection that isn’t even used; Exclusionary rules were the exception, not the rule; Now they’re history”: David Feige has this op-ed today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Driver’s-test forger granted 2nd chance on 3-strikes sentence; California man got 26-to-life for aiding his illiterate cousin”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

“Justices Agree to Expand Review of 2003 ‘Partial-Birth’ Abortion Ban”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.

And The Washington Post reports today that “Court to Address Abortion Restrictions.”

“S. Dakota abortion ban in voters’ hands; OK is ‘no slam dunk’ after petition drive”: This article appears today in The Chicago Tribune.

The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, South Dakota reports today that “Petition a success, abortion on ballot; If ban passes, opponents will challenge it in court.”

And The Rapid City Journal reports that “It’s official: HB1215 on ballot.”

“Full appeals court will hear S.J. refugee’s asylum case”: Howard Mintz has this article today in The San Jose Mercury News.

“The Chief Justice Sets A Standard”: Columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. has this op-ed today in The Washington Post.

“Hawaiian School Admissions Questioned”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A wealthy private school created exclusively for its indigenous people is asking a federal appeals court to allow it to continue its race-based admissions policy. Fifteen judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals were scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday in San Francisco about whether the Kamehameha Schools can continue to limit enrollment to Native Hawaiians.”

“Justices fight back: U.S. Supreme Court jurists, expected to stay mum in public, have been piping up about a range of issues not on the docket; Despite tsk tsks from some corners, this is actually a good thing.” Tony Mauro has this op-ed today in USA Today.

“A Supreme Court Majority Admits 911 Calls Into Evidence, But Justice Thomas Seeks More Protection for Domestic Violence Victims”: Julie Hilden has this essay online today at FindLaw.