“Don’t Call It An Attack, Sotomayor Critics Say”: Keith Perine has this report online at CQ Politics.

“Supreme Court Says Child’s Rights Violated by Strip Search”: Adam Liptak had this article yesterday in The New York Times. The newspaper also contained an editorial entitled “An Unreasonable Search.”

Yesterday in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes had an article headlined “Student Strip Search Illegal; School Violated Teen Girl’s Rights, Supreme Court Rules.” The newspaper also contained an editorial entitled “Strip Searches and the Law: A smart compromise balances the rights of students with the needs of school administrators.”

Yesterday in The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage had an article headlined “Supreme Court declares strip-search of student unconstitutional; The 8-1 decision says Arizona school officials lacked justification for such an invasive search of a 13-year-old girl, who was suspected of hiding ibuprofen pills.” And today’s newspaper contains an editorial entitled “A common-sense ruling on strip searches: A Supreme Court decision lays down a bright line for school officials.”

In yesterday’s edition of USA Today, Joan Biskupic reported that “Strip search at school violated girl’s rights, high court rules; Souter says there must be ‘reasonable suspicion of danger.’” The newspaper also contained an editorial entitled “Strip-search case ends in victory for common sense: Justices’ ruling exposes folly of ham-handed ‘zero-tolerance’ policies,” while Francisco M. Negron had an op-ed entitled “Ruling missed opportunity: Justices didn’t clarify boundaries for schools on ‘personal searches.’”

Yesterday in The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reported that “Court Faults Strip-Search of Student.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor had an article headlined “Supreme Court: Strip-search of 13-year-old girl was illegal; The decision sets the standard for how far school officials can go in conducting searches of students’ property.”

law.com’s Tony Mauro reported that “Supreme Court rules student strip search unconstitutional.”

And yesterday in The Arizona Daily Star, Howard Fischer had an article headlined “US high court: Strip search unjustified.”

“Supreme Court Sides With Arizona in Language Case”: This article appeared yesterday in The New York Times.

Yesterday’s edition of The Arizona Republic contained an article headlined “Court rules in favor of state in 17-year English-learner battle; Justices: Court didn’t weigh recent educational efforts” and an editorial entitled “Let’s build on what works for students.”

And yesterday in The Arizona Daily Star, Howard Fischer had an article headlined “US justices void order to increase ELL money statewide.”

“Chief Justice: High court not setting school rules.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Don’t look to the Supreme Court to set school rules, only to clarify them when officials have abdicated that responsibility, Chief Justice John Roberts said Saturday.”

“Justices Rule Lab Analysts Must Testify on Results”: Adam Liptak had this article yesterday in The New York Times.

Yesterday in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reported that “Defendants Have Right To Confront Analysts of Forensics, Court Rules.”

Yesterday in The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reported that “Defendant can cross-examine forensic experts, Supreme Court rules; Technicians who prepare crime lab reports can be called forth as witnesses, justices say, reversing a conviction of a Massachusetts man accused of selling cocaine.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court says criminal defendants can challenge forensic experts; Minority justices warn that the guilty ‘will go free on the most technical grounds.’”

law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “Forensic ruling adds burden for prosecutors; High court says prosecutors must use witnesses to present evidence.”

Yesterday in The Boston Globe, Jonathan Saltzman and John Ellement reported that “Accused win right to query forensics; High court rules on confronting scientific evidence.”

And yesterday’s edition of The Boston Herald contained an article headlined “High court sides with con; Coakley loses fight to uphold man’s drug conviction” and an editorial entitled “A win for drug dealers.”

“2nd Delay Sought On Detainee Report; Justice Dept. Wants More Review”: Today’s edition of The Washington Post contains an article that begins, “Justice Department lawyers told a federal judge yesterday that the disclosure of a hotly anticipated 2004 report by the CIA inspector general on the Bush administration’s interrogation program for terrorism suspects will be delayed until shortly before the July 4 holiday weekend.”

“White House Weighs Order on Detention; Officials: Move Would Reassert Power To Hold Terror Suspects Indefinitely.” This article appears today in The Washington Post.

And The New York TImes reports today that “Shift Possible on Terror Suspects’ Detention.”

“Government Takes Side of Investors; Supports Right to Sue Over Excessive Fees”: Yesterday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal contained an article that begins, “The government has waded into a Supreme Court case that could determine the future of mutual-fund fees, arguing it believes a lower court went too far in restricting investors’ ability to sue funds over what they considered excessive fees.”

“Old Confirmation Wars Fueling Some Critics Now”: Neil A. Lewis had this article yesterday in The New York Times. Yesterday’s newspaper also contained an article headlined “Court Nominee Criticized as Relying on Foreign Law.”

Meanwhile, in commentary, the McClatchy-Tribune News Service has posted online an op-ed by Michael Gonzalez entitled “Sotomayor and racial identity politics.”

And earlier this week, columnist Linda P. Campbell of The Fort Worth Star-Telegram had an op-ed entitled “‘Activist’ judges come in both liberal and conservative robes.”

“Court: Homeless not subject to Megan’s Law.” Today’s edition of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania contains an article that begins, “A state Superior Court panel ruled Friday that convicted sexual offenders cannot be held subject to Megan’s Law registration requirements if they are homeless. The state appellate court found that William H. Wilgus should not have been prosecuted for violating the requirements to register his address with state police because he could not find a home after being released from prison in 2007.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania at this link.

In yesterday’s mail: I received a copy a new book written by Pulitzer Prize-winning author James MacGregor Burns, “Packing the Court: The Rise of Judicial Power and the Coming Crisis of the Supreme Court.”

“Business Capitalizes on Ruling in Political Case”: Today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal contains an article that begins, “A U.S. Supreme Court ruling focused on national security may end up as the most significant decision for business in the court’s about-to-conclude 2008-2009 term. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, released in May, will make it harder to bring a lawsuit without specific factual evidence, raising the threshold for moving a case into expensive litigation and possibly saving companies millions of dollars in legal fees.”

The Associated Press is reporting: Mark Sherman reports that “Supreme Court to decide final 3 cases on Monday.”

And in other news, “NFL asks high court to weigh in on antitrust case.”