“High Court Sides With Woman’s Retaliation Claim”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered.”

The litigation over North Carolina’s previously purloined original copy of the Bill of Rights appears to be concluded: A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued this unpublished per curiam opinion today. Additional background on this matter can be accessed here and here from The Christian Science Monitor and here from the U.S. Marshals Service.

In news coverage of today’s ruling, The Associated Press reports that “U.S. appeals court backs N.C. in ownership of Bill of Rights copy.”

“Lawmakers Subpoena Former State Supreme Court Chief Justice”: Lynne Tuohy of The Hartford Courant provides a news update that begins, “Former Supreme Court Chief Justice William J. Sullivan was subpoenaed today to testify before the legislature’s Judiciary Committee hearing next Tuesday on his machinations to withhold release of a controversial high court ruling to aid the prospects of a colleague to succeed him as chief justice.”

“Technical Glitch Opens Window Into Leak Case”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times provides a news update that begins, “About eight pages of a 51-page government brief filed in federal court in San Francisco on Wednesday were electronically blacked out to protect what prosecutors said was sensitive material concerning a grand jury’s investigation into steroid use in baseball. But the secret passages can be viewed by simply pasting the document into a word processing program.”

Liptak’s update credits Josh Gerstein of The New York Sun for breaking that news in an article published today headlined “Prosecutors Demand Reporters Testify in Steroid Case.”

Earlier today, I linked here to the federal government’s supposedly redacted court filing. To read the redacted text, simply use the PDF “select” feature, then right-click and “copy to clipboard,” after which you will need to past the copied text into a word processing program or into Notepad. The “Deadspin” blog explains the process in a post titled “How To Outwit The Government.”

So you can use Adobe Acrobat to avoid Microsoft Word’s metadata problem, but apparently Adobe Acrobat’s redact function does not truly hide the document’s text if the text is merely blackened-out.

“Supreme Court Sides With Employees in Discrimination Case”: law.com’s Tony Mauro provides this news update.

And Charles Lane of The Washington Post provides a news update headlined “Sex Bias Award Affirmed.”

On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “Justices Rule on Employment, Immigration, Abuse Cases” (featuring David G. Savage) and “Court Ruling on Deportation Divides a Family.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

Access online the audio from today’s Ninth Circuit rehearing en banc oral argument in Padilla v. Lever: The audio file can be accessed here (Windows Media format; 9.57 MB audio file; right-click to download to your computer). Earlier today, I linked here to press coverage previewing the en banc reargument.

“Show Me State: The Supreme Court listens to the states.” Douglas T. Kendall and Jennifer Bradley have this essay online at The New Republic.

“Hard Knocks With No-Knock: Why is it unreasonable to announce and wait?” Tim Cavanaugh has this essay online at Reason.

“Gorsuch looks like shoo-in for court; The Denver native, a nominee to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, breezes through a hearing attended by just one senator”: This article appears today in The Denver Post.

“Federal building on lockdown”: The Chicago Tribune provides a news update that begins, “U.S. Marshals are conducting a floor-to-floor search this morning at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse for a man who escaped custody during a court appearance.”

The Chicago Sun-Times provides a news update headlined “Dirksen federal building on alert.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Prisoner Escapes From U.S. Marshals.”

“Breaking up the 9th Circuit an issue again in the Senate”: Lawrence Hurley has this article today in The Daily Journal of California.

Thanks to the Eleventh Amendment, former law student’s constitutional challenge to in-state tuition discounts at Indiana University School of Law is moot: A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued this opinion today.

Over the dissent of three judges, the Federal Circuit denies rehearing en banc in Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.: You can access the order denying rehearing en banc, and two dissenting opinions from that order, at this link. Six votes were required for rehearing en banc to have been granted.

On the first full day of summer: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today issued a decision in a case involving a patent dispute over an inflatable Santa. According to this web page, there’s only 185 days, 11 hours, and 50 minutes till the arrival of Christmas.

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court opinions in argued cases: The Court today issued five decisions in argued cases.

1. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Woodford v. Ngo, No. 05-416. You can access the syllabus here; Justice Alito’s opinion here; Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s opinion concurring in the judgment here; Justice John Paul Stevens’ dissenting opinion, in which Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined, here; and the oral argument transcript here. Additional background on the case is available at this link.

2. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, No. 05-259. You can access the syllabus here; Justice Breyer’s opinion here; Justice Alito’s opinion concurring in the judgment here; and the oral argument transcript here. Additional background on the case is available at this link.

3. Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court in Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, No. 04-1376. You can access the syllabus here; Justice Souter’s opinion here; Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion here; and the oral argument transcript here. Additional background on the case is available at this link.

4. Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court in Dixon v. United States, No. 05-7053. You can access the syllabus here; Justice Stevens’ opinion here; Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s concurring opinion here; Justice Alito’s concurring opinion, in which Justice Antonin Scalia joined, here; Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion, in which Justice Souter joined, here; and the oral argument transcript here. Additional background on the case is available at this link.

5. And The Court issued a per curiam decision in Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc., No. 04-607, dismissing the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. Justice Breyer issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Stevens and Souter joined. You can access the oral argument transcript here. Additional background on the case is available at this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press provides reports headlined “Top Court Affirms Sex Discrimination Award“; “Top Court Sides With Gov’t in Duress Case“; “Supreme Court Limits Lawsuits by Inmates“; and “Top Court Rules Against Illegal Immigrant.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court eases retaliation proof requirement.”

“Denver native Gorsuch sails through hearing for 10th Circuit”: This article appears today in The Rocky Mountain News.

“Latest bid in battle for cross is rejected; ‘The moment of truth is upon us,’ Aguirre says”: The San Diego Union-Tribune today contains an article that begins, “An appeals court decision yesterday narrowed the city of San Diego’s options for keeping the Mount Soledad cross in place to a last, shot-in-the-dark chance before the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“Turning to the right: Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions are revealing the new conservative influence from the Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito.” You can listen online, on-demand to this program (RealPlayer required) featuring Law Professor David Stras. It aired yesterday during the first hour of the Minnesota Public Radio program “Midmorning.”

“Conn. challenges ‘Choose Life’ group”: Yesterday’s edition of The Journal News of Westchester, New York contained an article that begins, “A Yonkers pro-adoption group that is suing New York and New Jersey to get its ‘Choose Life’ license plates on the road now faces a new challenge in Connecticut.”

“Active Liberty: A Progressive Alternative to Textualism and Originalism?” In the June 2006 issue of the Harvard Law Review, Tenth Circuit Judge Michael W. McConnell has this review of Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s book, “Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution.”

“Illinois lawyer tied to indicted law firm; A Tribune investigation raises questions about fees paid to a Springfield attorney by a high-powered law firm; That firm was indicted last month in California on charges it lured clients with illegal kickbacks”: The Chicago Tribune today contains a lengthy article that begins, “For the last three decades, whenever a major corporation has been accused of cheating its stockholders, the powerhouse New York law firm of Milberg Weiss hasn’t been far behind with a class-action lawsuit.”

“Police chief, detective testify at judge’s trial; Sapulpa Police Chief Jim Wall and Capt. Mike Reed testified Tuesday they heard what they believed to be a penis pump while in Donald Thompson’s Sapulpa courtroom in 2002”: The Sapulpa (Okla.) Daily Herald today provides an article that begins, “Jurors received their first look Tuesday at one of the infamous penis pumps former judge Donald Thompson allegedly used while conducting court during 2002 and 2003.”

And The Tulsa World today contains an article headlined “Jury in ex-judge’s case sees photos” that begins, “Graphic photos and testimony marked the second day of trial for a former Creek County judge accused of masturbating while on the bench.”

“Charla Mack’s friend says she warned him, others”: The Reno Gazette-Journal today contains an article that begins, “A Reno man who was dating Charla Mack before she was stabbed to death last week is keeping his blinds drawn and his doors locked, while Darren Mack, charged in her murder and a suspect in the shooting of a family court judge, remains a fugitive.”

“Judge May Deny Bid to End NSA Suit; The federal government has claimed ‘state secrets privilege’ in seeking the dismissal of a rights group’s domestic spying case against AT&T”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

“Close Guantanamo? Yes, but keep in mind: It’s not the main problem.” This editorial appears today in The Washington Post.

“Redistricting Ruling Imminent: Supreme Court’s Decision Could Be Felt Far Beyond Texas.” Jess Bravin and Ben Winograd have this article (free access) today in The Wall Street Journal.

“Executing the Mentally Ill and the Mentally Retarded: Three Key Recent Cases from Texas and Virginia Show How States Can Evade the Supreme Court’s Death Penalty Rulings.” Elaine Cassel has this essay online today at FindLaw.

“Feds urge judge: Force reporters to reveal source; Prosecutors seek leak identity — Chronicle defends articles.” Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “Federal prosecutors asked a judge on Wednesday to order two Chronicle reporters to identify who provided them transcripts of grand jury testimony about star athletes’ use of performance-enhancing drugs, saying they have no legal right to withhold the information.”

You can access a redacted version of the federal government’s court filing at this link.

“DeWine seeking to resurrect beleaguered Boyle nomination”: Today’s edition of The Hill contains an article that begins, “Despite a likely fatal lack of support among the Republicans in the Gang of 14, conservative activists this week pushed hard to move the forlorn nomination of Judge Terrence Boyle to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.”

“Ballot language returns to court”: The Monterey County Herald today contains an article reporting that “The panel of 15 federal judges in San Francisco is scheduled [today] to rehear Padilla v. Lever, a case that concluded that provisions of the Voting Rights Act apply to recall petitions, which must be translated into the languages spoken in the area where they are circulated.”

And the Monterey County Weekly has today posted online an article headlined “Padilla Reconsidered: Landmark case could change the shape of Monterey County–and California.”

After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit posts online the audio of today’s rehearing en banc oral argument, I will link to it.