“At Supreme Court, two big GOP wins; The justices narrowly approve preelection ‘issue ads’ and protect Bush’s faith-based initiative from legal challenges”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“U.S. faith-based office staves off challenge; Wisconsin group lacks legal standing, Supreme Court rules”: This article appears today in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The Wisconsin State Journal reports today that “High court rules against local group.”

The Boston Globe reports that “Court bars suit on faith-based plan; Bush initiative can continue.”

And The Los Angeles Times contains an editorial entitled “Faith and taxes: A Supreme Court opinion barring taxpayers from challenging a president’s faith-based spending ignores common sense.”

“Court Rocks the 2008 Campaign; Free Speech Is Backed for Ads on the Issues”: The New York Sun contains this article today, along with an editorial entitled “Tie-Breaker.”

The Los Angeles Times reports today that “‘Send a message’ ads expected to swell; Groups such as the NRA may now air spots that target specific candidates in the weeks before an election.” A related editorial is entitled “A good tweak: The Supreme Court strengthens a weakness on issue ads in the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law.”

USA Today reports that “Shackles off ‘issue ads’ naming candidates, but who benefits up for debate.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “High Court opens door for wealthy interest groups.”

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that “Campaign ad limits relaxed; In case from Wisconsin, justices loosen key McCain-Feingold rule.”

The Washington Post contains an editorial entitled “A Loophole Reopens: The Supreme Court jettisons sense on campaign ‘issue ads.’”

And The Capital Times of Madison, Wisconsin contains an editorial entitled “Court backs bad politics.”

“Judge Discusses Details of Work On Secret Court; He Takes Issue With NSA’s Wiretaps”: This article appears today in The Washington Post. You can access via that web page audio of the judge’s talk.

“U.S. agents are spared racketeering suit; The Supreme Court rejects a Woming rancher’s legal strategy against the Bureau of Land Management”: Henry Weinstein has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Key trial evidence goes missing; Injured customers suing U-Haul over accidents have sought key equipment, only to find it lost or discarded”: This lengthy article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Judge Offers Plan to Keep Vonage Afloat”: The Washington Post contains this article today.

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Federal Circuit oral argument appears at this link.

“Court Rules for Cleaners In $54 Million Pants Suit”: This front page article appears today in The Washington Post. In addition, the newspaper contains an editorial entitled “Dressing Down: A D.C. judge puts the pants plaintiff in his place; Will the District’s judge selections be handled as sensibly?” And Metro columnist Marc Fisher has an essay entitled “A Scary View of U.S. Legal System.”

The Los Angeles Times reports today that “D.C. jurist cuts pants plaintiff no slack; First he lost his trousers, now he’s lost his suit, and he may yet have to dig deep into his pockets to pay the defendants’ legal fees.”

And USA Today contains an article headlined “Pants suit: Ruling goes to the cleaners; Missing threads not worth $54M.”

“Justices let schools ban pro-drug signs; High court rules, 5-4, that administrators have the right to discipline students for promoting illegal activities”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times. The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “The wrong lesson: In the ‘BONG HiTS 4 JESUS’ case, the Supreme Court muddles the message of an important precedent.”

The Juneau Empire reports today that “‘Bong hits’ ruling sides with district; Justices say Juneau principal had a right to suspend student.”

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “‘Bong’ case limits student speech.”

USA Today contains an editorial entitled “Ruling in ‘bong hits’ case invites new curbs on school expression.” And Claudia Mansfield Sutton has an op-ed entitled “Ruling strengthens schools; Court backs administrators’ right to protect students’ best interests.”

“Top Court Not Cruel To Buyer Of Warhol Elvis”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Elvis left the building with the right owner, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in an opinion released Monday. A 1962 Andy Warhol silk screen featuring 36 identical images of Elvis Presley’s face was at the center of a court battle in Connecticut.”

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

“New Scrutiny as Immigrants Die in Custody”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “Sandra M. Kenley was returning home from her native Barbados in 2005 when she was swept into the United States’ fastest-growing form of incarceration, immigration detention. Seven weeks later, Ms. Kenley died in a rural Virginia jail, where she had complained of not receiving medicine for high blood pressure. She was one of 62 immigrants to die in administrative custody since 2004, according to a new tally by Immigration and Customs Enforcement that counted many more deaths than the 20 previously known.”

“Supreme Court to Weigh Limits on Cases Involving Medical Devices”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

“Prosecutors Invite a Dismissal in KPMG Tax-Shelter Case, Burdened by Technicalities”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “Federal prosecutors trying to bolster their faltering tax-shelter investigation have essentially dared a federal judge to dismiss charges against former employees of the accounting firm KPMG so that they can appeal the ruling and get the case moving again.”

And The Washington Post reports today that “U.S. Disputes KPMG Ruling; Dismissal of Tax-Shelter Case May Be Only Path to Appeal.”

“Can you have a hate crime without hate?” So asks today’s installment (TimesSelect pass-through link) of Clyde Haberman’s “NYC” column in today’s issue of The New York Times.

“Three Bad Rulings”: The New York Times today contains an editorial that begins, “The Supreme Court hit the trifecta yesterday: Three cases involving the First Amendment. Three dismaying decisions by Chief Justice John Roberts’s new conservative majority.”

“The Truth About Guantanamo: Proposals to treat detainees as criminal defendants make a mockery of international humanitarian law.” James Taranto has this op-ed (free access) today in The Wall Street Journal.

And today in The New York Times, Morris D. Davis has an op-ed entitled “The Guantanamo I Know.”

The Associated Press is reporting: An article headlined “Durbin Takes on Judge Over Combatants” begins, “A Senate Democratic leader Tuesday urged a Bush-appointed judge to recuse himself from cases involving enemy combatants and requested an explanation about information that might contradict his testimony about the White House’s detainee policy. ‘It appears that you misled me, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the nation,’ Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois wrote to Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.”

And in other news, “La. Lawmakers Ban Late-Term Abortions.”

“Early action on detainees”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“A Supreme Court Conversation”: The most recent entries in Slate’s “The Breakfast Table” conversation between Walter Dellinger and Dahlia Lithwick can be accessed via this link.

“Analysis: Some Thoughts on Opinion Authorship and the Dynamic in the Court.” Tom Goldstein has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

Glad we cleared that up! The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today issued an order adopting Local Rule 32.1, effective immediately. That local rule governs the citation of non-precedential opinions and makes clear the reasons why the court has decided to continue to use non-precedential opinions to decide certain appeals.

A comment providing the rationale behind the rule explains, “Denying summary orders precedential effect does not mean that the court considers itself free to rule differently in similar cases.” I can’t help but think that the late Eighth Circuit Judge Richard S. Arnold, who considered non-precedential appellate court decisions to be unconstitutional and unwise, would have had a good laugh over that line.

Thanks to Josh Gerstein of The New York Sun for drawing today’s Second Circuit order to my attention.

“Court: Stadium Pat-Downs Not A Violation.” The Tampa Tribune provides a news update that begins, “Pat-down searches of fans entering Tampa Bay Buccaneers’ games does not constitute a violation of the Constitution — at least not in the case of a Tampa Bay Technical High School civics teacher who sued the NFL and the Tampa Sports Authority over the procedure.”

And The St. Petersburg Times provides a news update headlined “Appeals court reverses ruling on pat-downs at Bucs games.” Earlier coverage appeared in articles headlined “His civics duty: A teacher who is fighting the NFL’s policy of searching fans wants to set a good example for the students in his American government class” and “Judge to Bucs: No more fan patdowns; The team’s security policy of patdown searches for fans at home games is unconstitutional, a federal judge rules.”

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

The basis for the today’s ruling appears in the second to last paragraph of the opinion:

Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes that Johnston voluntarily consented to pat-down searches each time he presented himself at a Stadium entrance to attend a game. The record is replete with evidence of the advance notice Johnston was given of the searches including preseason notice, pregame notice, and notice at the search point itself. It was clear error for the district court to find that Johnston did not consent to the pat-down searches which were conducted.

I guess that, pursuant to today’s ruling, a fan who wishes to attend a Tampa Bay Buccaneers home game and obtains a ticket but then is refused admission for failing to undergo the pat-down search would have the ability to pursue a Fourth Amendment challenge to the search.

“Mass. Inmates Asks for Sex Change”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A trial that opened more than a year ago has become bogged down in Boston federal court. There have been hundreds of hours of testimony from witnesses, including 10 medical specialists paid tens of thousands of dollars. The judge himself even hired an expert to help him make sense of it all. The question at the center of the case: Should a murderer serving life in prison get a sex-change operation at taxpayer expense?”

“Seattle Bar Honors Ninth Circuit Senior Judge Betty Binns Fletcher”: The Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this news release yesterday.

“Mandatory Minimum Terms Result In Harsh Sentencing”: The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has today issued a news release that begins, “Citing cases in which first-time offenders received decades-long sentences under laws imposing mandatory penalties, a federal judge today told a Congressional subcommittee that such sentences are inequitable and unduly harsh.” You can access the prepared testimony of U.S. District Judge Paul G. Cassell by clicking here.

Additional coverage is available from the “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog here and here.

“First Amendment claims get mixed reception at Court”: Tony Mauro has this news analysis online at the First Amendment Center.

“Good Legal News For Bloggers”: The blog “Baseball Crank” this morning has a post that begins, “The Second Circuit ruled, in today’s decision in Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, that making statements on an Iowa-based website about a New York-based moving company, responding to a question from a reader in New York, and accepting donations from New York readers does not subject the proprietor to jurisdiction in the New York courts under New York law.”

Circuit Judge Robert D. Sack wrote today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel.

“Money Politics”: Today’s broadcast of the public radio program “On Point” included as guests Dahlia Lithwick and Lawrence Lessig discussing some of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court rulings. You can listen online using RealPlayer and Windows Media Player.

Counting strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act to determine a prisoner’s ability to proceed in forma pauperis: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued two rulings today on this issue. The more exhaustive ruling can be accessed here, while the other decision is here.

On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “High Court Rulings Show Judicial Divide” (featuring Nina Totenberg) and “Supreme Court Ruling Punctures Endangered Species Act.”

RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Court: Vasectomy ‘Gift’ Not Recoverable.” The AP provides this report on a ruling that the Utah Court of Appeals issued last week.

“Court Upholds Prisoners’ Right to Porn”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Convicted sex offenders in Sweden are free to read pornography in their cells following a court ruling that has angered the prison service.”

“[F]ew participants (with the possible exception of IP lawyers) ever stop to consider the intellectual property regime governing karaoke.” A $806,000 statutory-damage award for willful copyright infringement survives challenge under both the Eighth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause in this ruling that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued today.

“Alito Champions Business Causes in First Full High-Court Term”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News provides a report that begins, “In what may have been the most pro- business U.S. Supreme Court term in decades, standing out as companies’ No. 1 ally was no small feat. Justice Samuel Alito managed it in his first full year.”

“The Profession v. Gitmo: Lawyers, military or civilian, see war as just another legal case.” Andrew C. McCarthy has this essay at National Review Online.