“Batson and the ‘O.J. factor'”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

FEMA meets FOIA: According to a lengthy decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued today, “At issue today is whether FEMA has established that the names and addresses of 1.3 million individuals who applied for aid or made insurance claims after one of 31 federally-declared disasters are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA ….” The court holds that the addresses are not exempt from disclosure, but the names are.

“A Supreme Court Conversation”: Slate’s “The Breakfast Table” featuring Walter Dellinger and Dahlia Lithwick is back, and the first two installments are titled “Are We All Legal Realists Now?” and “The Constitution: The Juicy Bits.”

“The Next Supreme Court Vacancy: There’s plenty of room to confirm another strong justice.” Edward Whelan has this essay at National Review Online.

“Tax resisters finding allies in cyberspace; N.H. couple vow to continue fight”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.

“A Tale of Two Prosecutors: Mike Nifong is punished, but Patrick Fitzgerald isn’t.” Dorothy Rabinowitz has this op-ed (free access) today in The Wall Street Journal.

“High Court Sentencing Vote May Bode Ill for Libby”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

Eleventh Circuit affirms dismissal for lack of standing of Burger King franchisees’ class action against McDonald’s Corporation asserting a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act relating to fraudulently administered McDonald’s promotional games: You can access today’s ruling at this link.

“This case presents the question of whether the First Amendment prevents Massachusetts law enforcement officials from interfering with an individual’s internet posting of an audio and video recording of an arrest and warrantless search of a private residence, when the individual who posted the recording had reason to know at the time she accepted the recording that it was illegally recorded.” So begins a decision that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued today.

As for the outcome of today’s ruling, the opinion’s final paragraph begins, “We conclude that the government interests in preserving privacy and deterring illegal interceptions are less compelling in this case than in Bartnicki, and Jean’s circumstances are otherwise materially indistinguishable from those of the defendants in Bartnicki, whose publication of an illegally intercepted tape was protected by the First Amendment. Jean’s publication of the recording on her website is thus entitled to the same First Amendment protection.”

“Standing by sentencing guidelines: A Supreme Court ruling brings some clarity to a complicated federal sentencing system.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“British Court Hears Chastity Ring Case”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A teenage girl banned from wearing a chastity ring in class took her case to Britain’s High Court on Friday, arguing that her school had violated her religious freedom. Lydia Playfoot, 16, a pupil at the Millais School in Horsham, about 40 miles south of London, wears a ring as a sign of her commitment to abstinence from sex until marriage.”

The New York Times provides a news update headlined “British Girl Sues for Right to Wear Chastity Ring.”

The Times of London today contains articles headlined “Girl goes to court over her ‘silver ring thing’” and “Briefing: the Silver Ring Thing.”

And The Guardian (UK) provides news updates headlined “School’s chastity ring ban ‘violated religious freedom’” and “The issue explained: Abstinence pledges.”

“Old bin Laden Interview Is Allowed Into Padilla’s Trial”: The New York Times contains this article today.

And The Miami Herald reports today that “Padilla jury to see bin Laden interview; A federal jury in Miami will view a CNN interview with al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in the Jose Padilla terrorism trial.”

“Top court empowers athletic associations; State groups get authority over recruiting; Brentwood Academy exhausts case appeals”: This article appears today in The Tennessean, along with an article headlined “Athletic association, private schools try to heal; Foes must plan course for future.”

Today in The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage and Eric Sondheimer have an article headlined “Supreme Court upholds limits on high school recruiting; The justices rule unanimously that coaches’ recruitment efforts aren’t protected as free speech.”

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “‘Hard sell’ in high school sports recruiting is out of bounds; High court: Limits do not interfere with free speech.”

And Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Tenn. High School Loses 10-Year Battle Over Recruiting.”

“Attorneys lock horns in privacy case; Lawyers argue that federal attempts to block investigations into whether phone records were revealed overstep the security act”: Henry Weinstein has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Investors’ Suits Face Higher Bar, Justices Rule”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes and Carrie Johnson report that “Pro-Business Decision Hews To Pattern of Roberts Court.”

And The Los Angeles Times reports that “Bar raised for suits by investors; A Supreme Court ruling is likely to lower the number of cases filed.”

“Ex-Professor’s Contempt Citation Prolonged”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “A federal judge has extended the contempt citation against a former Florida professor who has refused to testify in the investigation into whether Islamic charities in Northern Virginia were financing terrorist organizations. Sami al-Arian will remain jailed until at least October under Wednesday’s ruling by U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee in Alexandria, Arian’s wife and sources familiar with the decision said yesterday.”

“Senators Deride Justice Reassignments; Prosecutor Firings and Staff Decisions Draw Hill Criticism”: This article appears today in The Washington Post, along with an article headlined “Ashcroft Tells of Surveillance Disputes; House Panel Hears Of Battle Within Administration.”

“The complaint is a hideous sprawling mess, 40 pages in length with 221 paragraphs of allegations,” and therefore “the defendants can hardly be blamed for wanting to strangle the monster in its crib.” So writes Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner, on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel, in a decision issued today affirming the denial of a motion to dismiss.

“White House, Congress clashes could get bumpy”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers has an article that begins, “President Bush and the Democratic-led Congress are on a collision course over White House secrets, a sensitive conflict that’s as old as the country itself.”

“The facts of this case lead me to wonder if Terry‘s prudent constraints on police conduct have been forgotten in our frustration over city life plagued with drug trafficking and violent crime.” So writes D.C. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown in a dissenting opinion issued today. She then writes, “As a result, what we are now tempted to enforce is not Terry but the rule that, in a high-crime neighborhood, being young, male, and black creates reasonable, articulable suspicion.”

“This case raises a question that, surprisingly, has not yet been decided by this court: whether federal grand jury witnesses, after they have testified, are entitled to examine the transcripts of their own testimony.” So begins a decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today. The answer to that question, according to today’s unanimous per curiam decision, is “yes.”

“Guantanamo Splits Administration; Arguments Center on How to Handle Remaining Detainees”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

The Miami Herald reports today that “U.S. seeking takers for Guantanamo detainees; A State Department advisor said the government has been trying to transfer some detainees as the White House denied a report it was nearing a decision to close Guantanamo.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Guantanamo’s fate still undecided; A high-level meeting set today is canceled; But the future of the U.S. military prison may yet be discussed.”

And CNN.com reports that “Guantanamo meeting canceled after report closure is near.”

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “White House Wants Spying Lawsuits Tossed” and “‘Brown V. Board’ School May Be Spared.”

“W.U. wins right to keep cancer research samples”: Yesterday’s edition of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch contained an article that begins, “Human tissue, blood and DNA samples in limbo since 2003 because of a legal battle can now be used for prostate cancer research, Washington University officials said Wednesday after winning a key ruling. Dr. William J. Catalona, a noted researcher, fought to take the material with him after leaving the university, which opposed it.”

And The Associated Press provides an article headlined “Court: University Owns Research Samples.”

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

“After One Objection, Senate Confirms Corzine’s Choice for Chief Justice”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports today that “Rabner confirmed for high court.”

And The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger contains an article that begins, “The state Senate yesterday approved a new chief justice who may now lead New Jersey’s Supreme Court for a generation.”

“Don’t Veto, Don’t Obey”: The New York Times today contains an editorial that begins, “President Bush is notorious for issuing statements taking exception to hundreds of bills as he signs them.”

“Libby Judge Files Expanded Opinion; Details Decision Not Allowing Libby to Remain Free”: Josh Gerstein of The New York Sun provides this news update.

Yesterday morning, in a post you can access here, I made the opinion available online via this link.

“The Supreme Court’s Recent Decision Regarding Whether a Car Passenger is ‘Seized’ in a Traffic Stop: What the Court Held, What it Didn’t Hold, and Why the Decision Was Unanimous.” Vikram David Amar has this essay online today at FindLaw.