“Lawsuit Against Wiretaps Rejected; Case’s Plaintiffs Have No Standing, Appeals Court Rules”: This front page article will appear Saturday in The Washington Post.

And Saturday in The New York Times, Adam Liptak will report that “Challenge to Secret Wiretaps Is Dismissed.”

“No Fourth Amendment Protection in E-Mail Addresses, IP Addresses, Ninth Circuit Holds”: At “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Orin Kerr has this post about a ruling that a unanimous three-judge Ninth Circuit panel issued today.

Available online from law.com: An article reports that “Calif. Supreme Court to Hear Contentious Gay Rights Case.”

And the brand new installment of my “On Appeal” essay is headlined “Did a Federal Appeals Court Avoid Tackling the Real Issues Behind Football Fan’s Lawsuit? 11th Circuit rules that season ticket-holder can’t object to being searched upon entering stadium.”

“Mass. Bar Sued for Gay Marriage Question”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A man said he failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer a question about gay marriage, and claims in a federal lawsuit the test violated his rights and targeted his religious beliefs.”

“Fieger fights back at legal woes; Lawyer sues federal government, Mich. Supreme Court judges”: This article appeared Monday in The Detroit News.

“Supreme Court’s predictable ‘rebel'”: Columnist Ellen Goodman has this op-ed today in The Boston Globe.

“Appeals Court Rejects Lawsuit on Surveillance”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times provides this news update.

Meanwhile, from National Public Radio, this evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Court Limits Lawsuits Over Government Surveillance.” And today’s broadcast of “Day to Day” contained an audio segment entitled “Court Rejects Challenge to Domestic Surveillance.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Federal appeals court reverses Detroit judge’s ruling on Bush spying program”: The Detroit News provides this update.

Henry Weinstein of The Los Angeles Times provides a news update headlined “Court rules in favor of domestic spying program; Federal judges say the ACLU and other plaintiffs had no standing to challenge Bush’s warrantless surveillance effort.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Appeals Court Orders Surveillance Case Dismissed.”

My earlier coverage of today’s Sixth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“How to judge the Roberts Supreme Court: To ask how activist it was is useless; It’s wiser to review why the court was either deferential or assertive.” Law Professor Kermit Roosevelt has this op-ed today in The Christian Science Monitor.

BREAKING NEWS — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holds that the American Civil Liberties Union and its co-plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the National Security Administration’s interception without warrants of certain telephone and email communications: You can access today’s ruling, by a divided three-judge panel, at this link.

Circuit Judge Alice M. Batchelder issued the lead opinion, and Circuit Judge Julia Smith Gibbons issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. Judge Gibbons’s opinion begins, “The disposition of all of the plaintiffs’ claims depends upon the single fact that the plaintiffs have failed to provide evidence that they are personally subject to the [Terrorist Surveillance Program]. Without this evidence, on a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs cannot establish standing for any of their claims, constitutional or statutory. For this reason, I do not reach the myriad other standing and merits issues, the complexity of which is ably demonstrated by Judge Batchelder’s and Judge Gilman’s very thoughtful opinions, and I therefore concur in the judgment only.”

And Circuit Judge Ronald Lee Gilman dissented. He would hold that the plaintiffs possess standing and that “the [Terrorist Surveillance Program] as originally implemented violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.” Judge Gilman’s dissenting opinion concludes: “The closest question in this case, in my opinion, is whether the plaintiffs have the standing to sue. Once past that hurdle, however, the rest gets progressively easier. Mootness is not a problem because of the government’s position that it retains the right to opt out of the FISA regime whenever it chooses. Its AUMF and inherent-authority arguments are weak in light of existing precedent and the rules of statutory construction. Finally, when faced with the clear wording of FISA and Title III that these statutes provide the ‘exclusive means’ for the government to engage in electronic surveillance within the United States for foreign intelligence purposes, the conclusion becomes inescapable that the TSP was unlawful. I would therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.”

I previously collected extensive news coverage of the opinion and injunctive order that U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the Eastern District of Michigan issued on August 17, 2006 in posts you can access here, here, and here. And this law blogger’s first mention on the front page of The New York Times came in connection with this case, in Adam Liptak’s article headlined “Experts Fault Reasoning in Surveillance Decision.”

In early news coverage of today’s ruling, The Associated Press reports that “Court Nixes Suit Against Spying Program.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press discusses the U.S. Supreme Court‘s Term-ending decisions: He appeared on this past Saturday’s broadcast of C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal.” You can view the segment online, on demand, by clicking here (RealPlayer required).

“Libby Pays Fine; Judge Poses Probation Query”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

And today in The Washington Post, columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. has an op-ed entitled “An Unpardonable Act,” while columnist Eugene Robinson has an op-ed entitled “The Commuter in Chief.”

“Thad Cochran tries to rescue Bush nominee”: Tuesday’s edition of The Hill contained an article that begins, “Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) is making a last-ditch effort to save the nomination of an appellate court nominee from his home state by appealing to Democratic colleagues on the Appropriations Committee.”

“Columbia man the likely nominee for U.S. 4th Circuit judge”: This article appeared Tuesday in The State of Columbia, South Carolina.

“Judicial Vacancies Leave GOP With Empty Feeling”: In The Washington Post, today’s installment of Al Kamen’s “In the Loop” column begins, “Some Republicans are upset that the White House has nominated only 25 people to fill the 47 vacancies now on the federal judiciary. Not to worry. If history is any guide, President Bush can nominate as many people as he wants, but most of them will not don the black robes anytime soon.”

“The Supreme Court Denies Plaintiffs Standing to Challenge Bush Administration Activities That They Allege Violated the Establishment Clause: What This Decision, and Others This Term, Reveal About the Court.” Vikram David Amar has this essay online today at FindLaw.