“White House prepared for Supreme Court vacancy”: Jan Crawford Greenburg will have this article Wednesday in The Chicago Tribune.

“Judges Affirm Decision That Found 4 Reporters in Contempt”: Adam Liptak will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.

Wednesday’s edition of The Washington Post will contain an article headlined “Reporters Told to Reveal Sources in Wen Ho Lee Case.”

And The Los Angeles Times provides a news update headlined “Court Refuses to Protect Reporters.”

“Court to Hear Abortion Dispute Again”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.

“Thomas Decries Talk of ‘Imagined Resignations’; Justice speaks at swearing-in of Georgia’s chief justice”: law.com provides an article that begins, “Leah Ward Sears was sworn in at the Georgia Capitol as the chief justice of the state Supreme Court on Tuesday, enjoying the wishes of a standing-room only crowd and Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“Supreme Court Ends Amid Speculation”: This evening’s broadcast of the PBS program “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer” included this end-of-Term recap (RealPlayer required) featuring Jan Crawford Greenburg and Law Professors Douglas W. Kmiec and Laurence H. Tribe.

In news from Canada: The Toronto Globe and Mail provides a news update headlined “Rwandan activist’s deportation order upheld.” In connection with that ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada today also issued an interesting recusal-related opinion.

And in other news, Canadian Press reports that “Canada votes to allow gay marriage” and “Homolka seeks injunction against media.”

“Sears sworn in as Georgia chief justice; First black woman to hold post in any state”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Leah Sears, who survived an attempt by conservatives last year to block her re-election to the state Supreme Court, took the oath of office Tuesday as the court’s chief justice, becoming the first woman to hold that position. With U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a longtime friend, looking on, Sears vowed to ‘strive mightily to uphold the independence and integrity’ of the judiciary.” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution provides a related photo essay.

“Lawmakers target eminent domain; Representatives, Assembly members seek to protect Alaskans’ property”: This article appears today in The Anchorage Daily News.

Ten Commandments-related news coverage from here and there: From Alaska, The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reports that “ACLU to consider Fairbanks displays.”

From Arizona, The Arizona Republic contains an article headlined “Ariz. Commandments likely safe.”

And The Arizona Daily Sun contains an article headlined “Court: Some Ten Commandments displays OK.”

From California, David Kravets of The Associated Press has an article headlined “Will Ten Commandments stay in 9th Circuit courthouse?”

The Contra Costa Times reports that “Experts unsure on lawyer’s suit.”

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Split in church-state rulings leaves questions.”

The Press-Enterprise of Riverside reports that “Rulings leave Inland cases unresolved.”

And The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that “Ten Commandments, 2 rulings; Justices OK a display in Texas, but not in Ky.”

From Colorado, The Denver Post contains an article headlined “Divided on display of commandments; Ten Commandments monuments upheld, rejected based on context.”

And The Rocky Mountain News contains an article headlined “Take two tablets for an opinion; Coloradans divided over proper places for Commandments.”

From Delaware, The News Journal of Wilmington contains an article headlined “Split rulings on Ten Commandments; No effect seen on displays in Sussex and nearby Pa.”

From the District of Columbia, The Washington Times reports that “Court splits on Commandments” and “Conservative advocates hit restrictions on ‘symbols.’”

From Florida, The Ledger of Lakeland reports that “Rock Seems Solid, for Now; Polk display appears OK after a recent Supreme Court ruling.”

The St. Petersburg Times contains an article headlined “No clear rule on religious displays; One Ten Commandments display is okay because of its historical meaning, but others make an unconstitutional religious statement.”

The Tampa Tribune reports that “Display In Polk Seen As Passing Court Test.”

And The Palm Beach Post reports that “Justices split on religious displays.”

From Georgia, The Athens Banner-Herald reports that “Barrow vows to keep fighting ACLU suit.”

And The Gwinnett Daily Post reports that “Future of Barrow case left cloudy by decision.”

From Idaho, The Pocatello Idaho State Journal reports that “High court split over Ten Commandments.”

From Illinois, Jan Crawford Greenburg of The Chicago Tribune has an article headlined “On the 10 Commandments: Deeply divided justices allow a display in a historical context but not one promoting religion; To some the message is murky.”

And The Quincy Herald-Whig reports that “Court’s decision leaves many confused.”

From Indiana, The Indianapolis Star reports that “Ten Commandments draw split decisions; Church-state debate clouded.”

And The Elkhart Truth contains an article headlined “Local implications of Ten Commandments rulings: Wait and see.”

From Iowa, The Des Moines Register reports that “Court message is mixed on Ten Commandments; Two 5-4 rulings show intent of public displays is key.”

From Louisiana, The Advocate of Baton Rouge reports that “High court’s split decision disappoints.”

From Maine, The Morning Sentinel reports that “Local church leaders differ on rulings.”

From Maryland, Gail Gibson of The Baltimore Sun has an article headlined “A split on Commandments; ‘Passive’ displays are constitutional.” The newspaper also contains an article headlined “Opining on a monumental ruling.”

From Massachusetts, Charlie Savage of The Boston Globe reports that “Supreme Court splits rulings on Commandments; Display allowed in Texas, not in Ky.”

From Michigan, The Detroit Free Press reports that “Ruling revives state’s plan for commandments; Granholm, lawmakers push exhibit.”

The Grand Rapids Press reports that “Commandment rulings renew local debate.”

And The Saginaw News reports that “Some displays OK, some not.”

From Minnesota, The St. Paul Pioneer Press reports that “State displays stay, for now; Cities and counties say they’ll keep commandments where they are.”

And The Duluth News Tribune reports that “Settlement makes monument’s return unlikely.”

From Mississippi, The Clarion-Ledger reports that “Court delivers split rulings on Ten Commandments; Justices say key is emphasis on historical context, not religious.”

From Missouri, The News-Leader of Springfield reports that “Missouri Capitol monument safe for now; Blunt says he’s disappointed with one ruling against Ten Commandments display.”

And The Joplin Globe reports that “Local observers wonder what court is thinking; Officials say decisions could add to confusion.”

From Montana, The Billings Gazette reports that “Montana display of Ten Commandments similar to that of Texas.”

And The Daily Inter Lake reports that “Local display moves ahead.”

From Nebraska, The Lincoln Journal Star contains an article headlined “Must Plattsmouth monument go?”

From New Jersey, The Newark Star-Ledger reports that “Court splits on Ten Commandments; Public display constitutional in Texas, but not in Kentucky.”

And The Trenton Times reports that “City’s monument stands test of time.”

From New York, Josh Gerstein of The New York Sun reports that “High Court Verdicts Mixed on 10 Commandments.”

Newsday contains an article headlined “Case-by-case on Commandments; In mixed rulings, Supreme Court says Kentucky courthouses cannot post the monuments, but one at Texas Capitol is OK.”

And The Journal News of Westchester reports that “Supreme Court issues split decisions on Ten Commandments.”

From North Carolina, The News & Observer of Raleigh reports that “Court splits on Ten Commandments; Local governments seeking guidance on religious displays don’t get a simple answer.”

The Winston-Salem Journal reports that “Ruling stirs memories of local disputes; Davidson official says courts chipping away ‘religion-based foundation’ of government.”

And The News-Argus of Goldsboro reports that “Reaction to court decision on Ten Commandments is mixed.”

From North Dakota, The Forum of Fargo reports that “Court splits on Commandments.”

From Ohio, The Toledo Blade reports that “Rulings throw marker’s fate into question; Supreme Court says displays weighed case-by-case.”

And The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that “Court murky on religious displays; But Ten Commandments not allowed back in Ky. courthouses.”

From Oregon, The Statesman Journal of Salem reports that “Local opinion divided on court’s ruling; 10 Commandments decision seen as fair, frustrating and fuzzy.”

From Pennsylvania, Michael McGough of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that “U.S. Supreme Court splits on display of 10 Commandments; In separate 5-4 decisions, one display legal, another not.”

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “West Chester plaque seems safe, scholars say; Historic context offers protection.”

The Daily Local News of West Chester reports that “Local reaction mixed over Ten Commandments ruling.”

The Allentown Morning Call reports that “Local displays’ future iffy as leaders ponder rulings; Northampton County’s judges will review Monday’s Supreme Court rulings.”

The Express-Times of Easton reports that “Plaque policy to be reviewed; Ten Commandments ruling to possibly affect display in county courtroom.”

The York Daily Record reports that “Anxious observers in Hanover; Both sides in the Wirt Park dispute said they were on solid legal ground.”

And The Lancaster New Era contains an article headlined “Commandments tally: Both sides claim victory; Mixed rulings by top court produce mixed reaction here.”

From Rhode Island, The Providence Journal reports that “Court ruling spurs push to get back Providence’s monument.”

From South Carolina, The State reports that “High court ruling gives pending bill a boost.”

And The Herald of Rock Hill reports that “Ten Commandments win partial OK; Federal ruling prompts local criticism.”

From Tennessee, The Knoxville News Sentinel reports that “Ky. rulings may impact 3 counties.”

And The Greeneville Sun contains an article headlined “Ten Commandments: Status Of Local Courthouse Display Is Not Yet Clear, Mayor Jones Says.”

From Texas, The El Paso Times reports that “Austin keeps monument; Decision pleases religious, elected leaders.”

And The Daily Texan contains an article headlined “Court: Capitol tablets stay; Divided court allows religious display at Capitol but not courts.”

From Utah, The Deseret Morning News reports that “Split rulings won’t end lawsuits; No ‘bright line’ on display of 10 Commandments.”

And The Salt Lake Tribune contains an article headlined “Lawyers: Ruling settles little in Utah.”

From Washington State, The Seattle Times reports that “Attorney for Everett heartened by ruling on Texas monument.”

And The Daily Herald of Everett contains an article headlined “Hope on both sides; Decisions on Ten Commandments bolster each side in Everett case.”

From Wisconsin, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that “Commandments rulings settle little; Case-by-case guideline leaves both sides unhappy.”

And The La Crosse Tribune reports that “Supreme Court ruling shouldn’t affect Cameron Park monument.”

From Wyoming, The Casper Star-Tribune reports that “City’s Ten Commandments plans probably legal under high court rulings.”

From Canada, The Toronto Globe and Mail reports that “U.S. top court split on Ten Commandments; Jurists rule on religion’s role in public life; no word on ailing Chief Justice’s retirement.”

[Stay tuned for even more soon!]

“Context is key to sorting out Commandments rulings”: Tony Mauro has this news analysis online at the First Amendment Center.

“Lawmakers Prep for High Court Nomination”: FOXNews.com provides this report.

“End of Term: None of the justices resigned; But the U.S. Supreme Court still ended its session with a smorgasbord for court watchers.” Debra Rosenberg has this report online at Newsweek’s web site.

“State Supreme Court OKs Oak Creek power plant; Decision reverses lower courts decision in Wisconsin Energy case”: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel provides this news update reporting on a ruling that the Supreme Court of Wisconsin issued today.

The wire services are reporting: Reuters provides reports headlined “Reid suggests Republican lawmakers for high court“; “Appeals court reverses Indian land claim ruling“; and “U.S. preparing to appeal key tobacco penalty ruling.”

And Hope Yen of The Associated Press reports that “Appeals on Commandments Displays Rejected.”

“Peer to Peer Justice”: Wednesday’s edition of The Christian Science Monitor will contain an editorial that begins, “The unanimous Supreme Court decision that computer file-sharing services are illegal if their primary intent is to induce users to steal copyrighted songs is a judicial home run on two counts.”

Available at National Review Online: An editorial is entitled “No to Justice Gonzales.”

And Richard Nadler has an essay entitled “Forgetting Federalism: Kansas judges dispense with restraint.”

“Did the court get the establishment clause right?”: That’s the subject of this week’s “Debate Club” feature at legalaffairs.org. The participants in this week’s discussion are Law Professors Paul Finkelman and John C. Eastman.

The Associated Press is reporting: Jesse J. Holland has an article headlined “Frist, Reid Talk Potential Court Nominees.”

And in other news, “Court Rulings Concern Tech Entrepreneurs.”

“We must decide who determines whether an agreement containing an arbitration clause is unconscionable: the arbitrator or the court.” So began a unanimous three-judge panel’s opinion in a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today has granted rehearing en banc.

“Top court to decide anti-abortion group lawsuit”: James Vicini of Reuters provides this report.

Next thing you know, someone will require Justice David H. Souter to try his hand at computerized file-sharing: WorldNetDaily.com is reporting that “Developer seeks Souter’s property; Looks to build ‘Lost Liberty Hotel’ at home of Supreme Court justice.” The press release of Freestar Media, LLC can be accessed here. Thanks to “L-Cubed” and “Law Dork” for drawing this to my attention.

“9th Circuit Seal Seems to Be Safe for Now”: Sure, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit may have suffered two reversals yesterday in high-tech cases at the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court, but when it comes to the low-tech image of scribbled lines carved into stone tablets, two other rulings that the Supreme Court issued yesterday seem to portend good things for the legality of the Ninth Circuit’s seal.

Today in the Daily Journal of California, Peter Blumberg and Claude Walbert have an article that begins, “An image of the Ten Commandments in the official seal of the highest court in the West appears to be safe – at least for now. In light of Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court rulings on displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses and other public spaces, experts said the clerk of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals need not fret over a lawsuit that accuses her of mixing church and state every time she uses office stationery.”

Reader mail: According to an email that arrived this afternoon:

The 18th edition of The Bluebook is now out, with an expanded discussion of how to cite internet resources, including blogs. I thought you’d enjoy the fact that the first citation example offered for a blog (p. 158) is to “How Appealing”. I think you can take it that means the editors considered “How Appealing” to be the canonical example of a legal weblog. (SCOTUSblog was second.)

I thank this longtime reader for sharing this interesting news.

Divided three-judge Second Circuit panel overturns award of more than $247 million in favor of Indian Tribes, and against New York State, for the late-eighteenth-century dispossession of their land: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

“Split Opinions; For a High Court Nomination, Business Has Its Own Agenda; Corporate Lobby Diverges From Christian Groups On States-Rights Issue; A Breach Over Justice Breyer”: This front page article (pass-through link) appears today in The Wall Street Journal.

“ProfessorBainbridge.com” offers these thoughts on the article.

Update: The text of the article is also available here, via The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s web site.

The Associated Press is reporting: Gina Holland reports that “High Court to Consider Death Penalty Case.”

And in other news, “Prosecutor Seeks Death for Vt. Killer” and “Jury Acquits Ex-HealthSouth CEO Scrushy.”

Today’s other rulings of note from the D.C. Circuit: In the Wen Ho Lee case, an opinion issued today begins:

Five journalists appeal a District Court order holding them in contempt of court for refusing to answer questions regarding confidential sources in a non-party deposition in a civil case. They contend that the District Court improperly applied our precedent in Zerilli v. Smith, 656 F.2d 705 (D.C. Cir. 1981), to overcome a journalist’s qualified privilege to keep sources confidential. We hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in holding four of the five journalists in contempt and therefore affirm as to four of the Appellants. Because there was insufficient evidence to hold Appellant Jeff Gerth in contempt we reverse the District Court’s order as to him.

And a separate ruling issued today affirms the dismissal of a lawsuit filed against the Government of Japan by fifteen women from China, Taiwan, South Korea, and the Philippines alleging that Japanese soldiers routinely raped, tortured, and mutilated them, along with thousands of other women, in occupied countries before and during World War II.

In early press coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Contempt Finding Upheld Against Reporters.”

On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the D.C. Circuit dismisses the vitamin price-fixing antitrust claims at issue in Empagran S.A. vs. F. Hoffman-Laroche, Ltd. You can access today’s ruling at this link.

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court Order List: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston reports here that the Court today has agreed to review, once again, the case of Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc. My preview of that case can be accessed here.

In early press coverage, Gina Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court Steps Into Abortion Dispute.”

Today’s Order List can be accessed here.

“Anaheim Loses Its Battle for Now; Court of Appeal rules that team can call itself the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim for the rest of the season”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

And The Orange County Register reports today that “The closer is Angels keep L.A. in name; At least for the rest of this season, Anaheim learns from appeals court.”

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Ky. Residents Angry at Commandments Ruling” and “Groups Back Restraining Orders Amid Ruling.”

On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition“: This morning’s broadcast contained a report from Nina Totenberg entitled “Justices ‘Split Baby’ in Ten Commandments Rulings.”

The broadcast also contained segments entitled “Ruling on File Sharing Does Not Make Industry Immune” and “Despite High Court Ruling, Guantanamo Detainees in Limbo.”

RealPlayer is required to launch these audio clips.

Available at Salon.com: Farhad Manjoo has an essay entitled “A bitter defeat for the press: The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the Cooper-Miller case will do more than hurt two reporters — it will erode the press’s ability to cover sensitive stories.”

And Siva Vaidhyanathan has an essay entitled “Supreme Court’s unsound decision: Monday’s ruling against Grokster will do nothing to stop peer-to-peer file sharing — but it may well stifle technology innovation.”

“Bloggers Fighting Government Regulations”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Supreme Commandment: No divisiveness.” Law Professor Richard W. Garnett has this essay today at National Review Online.