“Legal blawgs gaining popularity”: This article appears today in The Jacksonville Financial News & Daily Record.

“Clear case of misplaced sympathy: David Hicks’s supporters are in denial about the nature of his actions.” In Tuesday’s edition of The Sydney Morning Herald, columnist Gerard Henderson has an op-ed that begins, “It’s all but official. The United States, on George Bush’s watch, is not a fascist state, despite what some Bush critics allege. The decision of the US Supreme Court in Hamdan v Rumsfeld, handed down last week, shows that the rule of law still prevails in the US democracy.”

“In Alaska, Crisis over Marijuana Is One of Identity”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered.”

“Congressional Record: The Court’s stunning Hamdan decision.” Law Professor Cass R. Sunstein has this essay online at The New Republic.

And also at TNR Online, Spencer Ackerman has an essay entitled “Down By Law: Inside Guantanamo’s military tribunal.”

“Hamdan, Redistricting Rulings Mark New Roberts Court’s First Term”: This segment (transcript with link to audio) featuring Stuart Taylor Jr. and Law Professors Kathleen M. Sullivan, Douglas W. Kmiec, and Jeffrey Rosen appeared on this evening’s broadcast of the PBS program “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.”

“Legal Experts: Follow Guantanamo Ruling.” The Associated Press provides this report.

“Supreme Court justice delays order to remove Soledad cross”: The San Diego Union-Tribune provides this news update.

“Detainees’ Lawyers Oppose More Filings”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Attorneys representing hundreds of Guantanamo Bay detainees urged a federal appeals court Monday to reject a Bush administration request for more legal filings in light of last week’s Supreme Court ruling in the case of Osama bin Laden’s driver.”

“ACS Hosts 2006 Supreme Court Review”: You can view the session — “featuring several of the nation’s most prominent legal academics and Supreme Court practitioners” — online by clicking here (Windows Media Player required).

BREAKING NEWS — “High Court Intervenes in Fight Over Cross”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The Supreme Court intervened Monday to save a large cross on city property in southern California.”

Meanwhile, in related news coverage, The San Diego Union-Tribune today contains an article headlined “Judge in cross case praised by colleagues; Liberal and activist labels called unfair.” The article begins, “It will very likely be in the first line of any account of the four-decade-long career of federal Judge Gordon Thompson Jr.: ‘The judge who in 1991 ordered that the Mount Soledad cross had to be moved.'” The newspaper has posted online at this link a copy of that ruling from 1991.

Update: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Delay in San Diego cross case.”

“In this case of first impression, the majority holds that a wife who sues her husband claiming that he negligently infected her with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is not limited to a theory that he did so knowing he was HIV positive but that liability also extends ‘to those situations where the actor, under the totality of circumstances, has reason to know of the infection.'” So begins the dissenting opinion of Justice Carlos R. Moreno from today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of California.

And later in his dissenting opinion, Justice Moreno writes: “The majority allows a person who tests HIV positive to bring an action against all former sexual partners and attempt to ascertain not only whether they had actual knowledge they were HIV positive when they engaged in sexual relations but also whether they had any ‘reason to know’ they were HIV positive. This cause of action potentially licenses invasions into the sexual privacy of all sexually active Californians and may even invite abuse of the judicial process. One can easily foresee a spate of ‘shakedown’ or vengeance lawsuits brought by plaintiffs whose motivation is not so much to discover how they contracted HIV as to force lucrative settlements or embarrass a former sexual partner by exposing that person’s sexual history in the guise of obtaining relevant discovery.”

“Childers’ legal status is overshadowed by the incendiary opinion written by 1st District Court of Appeal Judge Michael Allen, accusing his colleague, Chief Judge Charles Kahn, of the appearance of impropriety because of what Allen says is Kahn’s entanglement in Childers’ powerful political machine”: A news update headlined “Levin blasts judge in Childers case” appeared online last Thursday at the web site of The Pensacola News Journal.

Last Friday, the newspaper published an article headlined “Levin blasts back at judge’s ‘animosity’” stating that “While Allen’s views may have been argued privately among pundits familiar with Childers and Levin’s political connections, the opinion is astounding because it’s an almost unheard-of public attack upon a fellow jurist.” Also on Friday, the newspaper published a related article headlined “Childers fights for freedom; Prosecutors to ask today for 3½-year sentence to begin.”

And finally, on Saturday the newspaper reported that “Childers remains free for 30 days; State Supreme Court last hope to avoid 3½-year prison term.”

Creating all the stir are the separate opinions attached to this en banc ruling that Florida’s First District Court of Appeal issued last Wednesday.

“Does an HIV-positive individual owe a duty of care under California law not to transmit the virus to the other partner in a committed relationship only when the individual has actual knowledge he or she is infected, or may such a duty arise when the individual has constructive knowledge of his or her status?” At 1 p.m. eastern time today, the Supreme Court of California is scheduled to issue a ruling in a case presenting that question.

En banc Sixth Circuit issues Fourth Amendment search warrant ruling: The first paragraph of today’s majority opinion, written by Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, explains:

The Fourth Amendment provides in part that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” In this case, several agents of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms obtained a search warrant that satisfied the particularity requirements of the Fourth Amendment at the time the magistrate issued the warrant. But by the time the agents conducted the search, a supporting affidavit that was cross-referenced in the warrant and that particularly described the things to be seized had been placed under seal and thus was not present during the search.

The original three-judge panel’s ruling, which was vacated when rehearing en banc was granted, can be accessed here.

“Ninth Takes Its Lumps From Supreme Court”: Brent Kendall has this article today in The Daily Journal of California.

“Supreme Court Ruling Troubles GOP Senators”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Crack Found in Foam on Shuttle”: This is bad news for those looking forward to a space shuttle launch tomorrow. Also, the astronauts, under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, will likely face a much harsher sentence than if powder cocaine had been discovered.

“Blawg Review #64”: The brand new installment of “Blawg Review” can be accessed at this link.

“GOP hopefuls push new way to pick justices”: This article appears today in The Wichita Eagle.

“Roberts, Alito Failed to Change Balance on U.S. Supreme Court”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News provides this report.

“‘The Kennedy Court’?” The transcript of this weekend’s broadcast of “The Journal Editorial Report,” which featured an interview with former Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, can be viewed online at this link.

“Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruling ends years of work for Eli lawyers”: This article appears online today at The Yale Daily News.

“Disorder in the Court: The Guantanamo decision revealed a vein of deep passion on the Supreme Court; Which is just what Chief Justice John Roberts hoped for.” Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen has this essay in the July 10, 2006 issue of Time magazine.

“Hill GOP to put heat on Bush for more judges”: This article appears today in The Washington Times.

“Bobblehead Justices Help Journal Promote the Lighter Side of Law”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today. A related photo is here, while more information about the bobbleheads can be found at this link.

“Lawmakers Seek Action After Ruling on Detainees”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Congress Faces Dilemma on Terror Trials; They could back Bush and risk the court’s rebuke; Or they could alter rules and lose cases.”

The Washington Times reports that “Senators promise Gitmo statute.”

And in The Chicago Tribune, Dennis Byrne has an op-ed entitled “Contorting the law as a rebuke.”

“The court to democracy: Drop dead, citizens.” Columnist Steve Chapman had this op-ed yesterday in The Chicago Tribune.

“Former Justice’s Influence Felt in 2006”: That’s the headline of Charles Lane’s “Full Court Press” column published today in The Washington Post.

On the editorial page of today’s edition of The Washington Post: The newspaper contains editorials entitled “Campaign Finance Bellwether: The Supreme Court’s Vermont ruling seems like a defeat for reformers; In the long run, it may not be” and “Flagging Rhetoric: Once again, the Senate celebrates the Fourth of July the wrong way.”

“A Blog Mogul Turns Bearish on Blogs”: David Carr has this essay today in The New York Times.

“Protecting All Waters”: The New York Times today contains an editorial that begins, “Senator James Inhofe, a conservative Republican from Oklahoma, and Senator Lincoln Chaffee, a liberal Republican from Rhode Island, are at opposite ends of the earth on environmental issues. But both found themselves equally mystified by the recent Supreme Court decision on the Clean Water Act.”

“Hamdan: What the ruling says–and what it doesn’t say.” David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey have this essay online at OpinionJournal.

And Michael C. Dorf has an essay entitled “The Hidden–and Obvious–Lessons in the Supreme Court’s Divided Ruling Invalidating Military Commissions” online at FindLaw.

“Wiccan widow takes struggle to D.C.”: The Reno Gazette-Journal today contains an article that begins, “While families celebrate the nation’s independence with barbecues and fireworks, a Nevada soldier’s widow continues her fight for a veteran’s memorial plaque that recognizes her husband’s Wiccan religion.”

“A 2-month suspension for a kiss; Justices find Superior Court judge made an ‘unwanted advance’ toward his law clerk”: This article appeared last Friday in The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger (via “Legal Reader“).

Blawg Review #64: “How Appealing” is pleased to host the sixty-fourth installment of “Blawg Review.” Not only was the author of “How Appealing” born in 1964, but this installment of “Blawg Review” is the first to follow the announcement of the U.S. Supreme Court‘s end-of-Term rulings in argued cases. Moreover, to honor tomorrow’s anniversary of the birthday of the United States — an event that occurred in 1776 in Philadelphia, the very same city where “How Appealing” was born — Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. will be in Philadelphia tomorrow to deliver remarks before a 2 p.m. bell-ringing that ends with the ceremonial tapping of the Liberty Bell. The last time that Justice Alito made a public appearance in Philadelphia, he was photographed with the Phillie Phanatic.

Although by my unofficial count “How Appealing” may be the highest-traffic blog ever to have hosted “Blawg Review,” it is possible that some readers are visiting this blog for the very first time. “How Appealing” was launched on May 6, 2002. I try to provide timely coverage of newsworthy and interesting federal and state appellate court rulings. I also link to interesting mainstream media coverage of court rulings. And I cover nominations and confirmations of appellate court judges. One of this blog’s most popular features is its “20 questions for the appellate judge” interview series. Legal Affairs magazine hosted this blog from April 2004 through April 2006. Since April 20, 2006, American Lawyer Media’s law.com has graciously served as this blog’s host. I also write a weekly column about appellate issues for law.com. And, at my day job, I’m an appellate attorney in private practice who was quite pleased to be named a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer for 2006, marking the second year in a row I’ve been named as a Pa. Super Lawyer in the appellate field. And now, without further ado, on with the show!

David B. Lat, who is best known as the person who blogs under the moniker “Article III Groupie” at “Underneath Their Robes,” announced this week that he/she will no longer be one-half of “Wonkette.” Instead, the draw of law-blogging being as irresistible as it is, Lat will be returning to the realm of the law full-time, blogging in an endeavor connected to Elizabeth Spiers (who?).

Some law bloggers who haven’t been covering “Girls Gone Wild”-related litigation (but see here and here) or the trial of penis-pump-related criminal charges against a retired state court judge in Oklahoma (but see here and here) have apparently taken the time to study the Supreme Court’s recent 185-page ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

At “Legal Blog Watch,” Robert J. Ambrogi has a post titled “Barbecue Guide to the ‘Hamdan’ Case.” At “Balkinization,” Jack Balkin has a post titled “Hamdan and the NSA dispute.” At the brand new “Georgetown Law Faculty Blog,” some may question whether discussion of the Hamdan case will ever end (as of this moment, that blog’s most recent Hamdan-related post is here).

In other blog coverage of Hamdan, Clayton Cramer agrees with the dissenters. The blog “Jon Swift” offers a post titled “Declare Supreme Court Justices Enemy Combatants.” And “Counterterrorism Blog” provides a post titled “Prediction: Bush & Congress Will Override the Supreme Court’s Gitmo Decision.”

Turning from coverage of the detention of enemy combatants to coverage of the death penalty, at “Sentencing Law and Policy” Doug Berman offers “A few quick thoughts on Marsh.” The blog “Concurring Opinions” asks “Is Erroneous Conviction More Likely In Capital Cases?” And “StandDown Texas Project” provides a post titled “Another Innocent Executed in Texas?” Another blog that focuses intently on death penalty-related news and developments throughout the Nation is the “Ohio Death Penalty Information” blog.

But enough with death — what about taxes? The “TaxProf Blog” reports that Mother Nature has exacted her revenge on the Washington, DC headquarters of the Internal Revenue Service. All that is certain is that taxes will rise as a result.

At “Crime & Federalism,” Norm Pattis celebrates retaining the right to burn the American flag as a form of protest, even though he doesn’t foresee ever feeling the urge to do so. Perhaps Norm has more in common with Justice Antonin Scalia than Norm is willing to admit.

In the category of law bloggers doing fun things and attaining well-deserved recognition, “Article III Groupie” visited One First Street. J. Craig Williams’s blog “May it Please the Court” won first prize from the Los Angeles Press Club in the category of Best Individual Weblog. And “The Legal Reader” asks “Did Fugitive Darren Mack Post Comments on The Legal Reader?”

At “Bag and Baggage” — a blog whose existence predates and inspired “How Appealing” — Denise Howell has a post noting the existence of a new blog titled “California Supreme Court Pending Civil Cases.” For those interested in the decisions of the Eleventh Circuit and the Supreme Court of Georgia — and who isn’t — there’s a new blog titled “Notice of Appeal.” And Law Professor Joseph Scott Miller, who kindly gave me a Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist bobblehead doll some time ago, now has a blog titled “The Fire of Genius” offering “Academic commentary about patent law, i.p. law, creativity, and more.”

Back in February 2002, just about three months before “How Appealing” came into existence, The Legal Intelligencer published a column of mine headlined “A Concise Guide To Writing Better Appellate Briefs.” One of my recommendations was “Make your brief visually appealing.” At his blog “the (new) legal writer,” Raymond P. Ward has a post titled “On the cover of a brief” that focuses on ensuring that the cover of your appellate brief makes a good first impression on the reader.

The blawg universe has grown tremendously since I began “How Appealing” over four years ago, and this week’s installment of “Blawg Review” can merely scratch the surface of all the worthwhile posts that law bloggers have made during the past week. Although this week’s installment is now drawing to a close, I hope that readers and law bloggers will continue to draw to my attention via email new law-related blogs and posts of interest so that I can share them with the readers of “How Appealing.”

When I go out on speaking appearances, as I had the pleasure of doing again just last week, one of the most frequent questions that I receive is how do I compile all of the material that I post here. The answer is that so very much of it comes via emails from readers like you. And for that I remain truly grateful.

Blawg Review has information about next week’s host, and
instructions how to get your blawg posts reviewed in upcoming issues.