“Prosecution Rests in Padilla Trial”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “For a star defendant whose name is known around the world, Jose Padilla has become almost a bit player in his terrorism support trial – and some observers say the federal government may not have proved its case against him.”

“Closing the courthouse doors: With Roberts at helm, ordinary Americans lose at Supreme Court.” Law Professor Joseph Thai has this op-ed today in The Charlotte Observer.

“Va. Pain Doctor Gets Nearly 5-Year Term”: The Associated Press provides this report.

Death resulting from a woman’s unintentional consumption of peanuts resulted in a $1 million verdict against a paramedic service: And today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has overturned that verdict in a decision that you can access here. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner wrote the opinion.

In the July 23, 2007 issue of The New Republic: The magazine will contain an editorial entitled “Roberts Rules: John Roberts shows the yawning gap between modesty and obfuscation.”

And Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen will have an essay entitled “Court Approval: Will John Roberts ever get better?”

“UK court rules for press freedom over privacy rights”: Roger Parloff has this post today at Fortune magazine’s “Legal Pad” blog.

“Mistrial in Rape Case With Banned Words”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Before a jury was even seated, a judge declared a mistrial in a sex-assault case where he had barred the words ‘rape’ and ‘victim.'”

And The Lincoln (Neb.) Journal Star reports today that “Judge declares mistrial in Safi case.”

“In this appeal, we consider whether a public college president’s decision to cancel a student government election because of content published in a school newspaper violates the First Amendment rights of the student journalists who produce that publication.” So begins the majority opinion that a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.

The very next sentence of Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi‘s majority opinion states, “We conclude that, in the circumstances presented in this case, the school administrator’s actions did violate the First Amendment.”

Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs has issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part that begins:

I concur in the majority’s result insofar as it affirms the dismissal of some claims, but I dissent insofar as it reverses the grant of qualified immunity.

I concede that this short opinion of mine does not consider or take into account the majority opinion. So I should disclose at the outset that I have not read it. I suppose this is unusual, so I explain why.

* * *

The majority has fulfilled its responsibility to explain at some length its vacatur of a part of the district court’s judgment. But this is not a case that should occupy the mind of a person who has anything consequential to do. In a nutshell, the editors of the College Voice student newspaper used it as a campaign flyer to promote the self-styled radicals of the “Student Union” party in a long-ago student election, and the college president, finding that the partisan use of student-activity funds made a mockery of the election rules, directed that the election be re-run. The gist of the complaint is that the editors’ speech was chilled, which is deemed to be a bad thing.

This is a case about nothing. Injunctive relief from the school’s election rules is now moot (if it was ever viable); and plaintiffs’ counsel conceded at oral argument that the only relief sought in this litigation is nominal damages. Now, after years of litigation over two dollars, the majority will impose on a busy judge to conduct a trial on this silly thing, and require a panel of jurors to set aside their more important duties of family and business in order to decide it.

And Chief Judge Jacobs’s opinion concludes, “This prolonged litigation has already cost the school a lot of money that could better have been spent to enrich course offerings or expand student day-care. If this case ends with a verdict for plaintiffs (anything is possible with a jury), the district court will have the opportunity to consider whether the exercise merits an award of attorneys’ fees in excess of one-third of two dollars.”

Majority on divided three-judge Sixth Circuit panel rejects the latest iteration of Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman’s challenge to his Tennessee death sentence: You can access today’s ruling at this link.

“House Panel Rejects Bush’s Privilege Claim”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

Available online from law.com: An article reports that “N.J. Ethics Panel Finds Judge Abused Office by Interceding in Son’s Dispute, Urges Censure.”

In other news, “District Attorney in Ga. Teen Sex Case Under Fire; Video used against Genarlow Wilson is now subject of accusations against local prosecutor.”

And an article reports that “2nd Circuit Attempts to Clarify Fee Rule in Civil Rights Cases.” You can access yesterday’s amended Second Circuit ruling at this link.

“Harriet Miers’s Contempt of Congress: Are Conservatives About To Neuter Congress, While Claiming Full Legal Justification for this Separation-of-Powers Violation?” John W. Dean has this essay online today at FindLaw.