“State high court says trial judges can uphold tough sentences that had been cast in doubt”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times provides a news update that begins, “The California Supreme Court today salvaged thousands of tough criminal sentences that had been put in question by a U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that the state’s sentencing laws were unconstitutional. While the state high court ruled that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of inmates may have their sentences reconsidered, justices said trial courts were free to reinstate them under a new, stopgap sentencing law passed in March to resolve the constitutional flaws. The state court’s action, which came in two separate decisions, removed a pall over thousands of criminal sentences that had been in doubt since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in January that California’s law gave judges too much power to add extra years to a prison sentence.”

And Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update headlined “California Supreme Court upholds tough sentences.”

You can access the Supreme Court of California‘s rulings issued today in these two cases here and here.

“Teen Sex Case Reaches Ga. High Court; Justices who sidestepped Wilson case last year to hear oral arguments today”: law.com provides this report on the oral argument that the Supreme Court of Georgia will hear tomorrow in the Genarlow Wilson case.

That court has issued two media advisories (see here and here) along with a news release explaining that court’s order expediting review.

The oral argument is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. eastern time Friday, and it the Supreme Court of Georgia’s web site will provide a link to a live webcast of the oral argument.

“Anti-Indecency Measure Wins Approval”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A Senate committee on Thursday acted to restore the government’s authority to fine television and radio broadcasters for airing profanities, even if they are fleeting references. The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee approved a bill that would undo an appeals court ruling that invalidated the Federal Communications Commission’s new profanity policy.”

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismisses the claims of Valerie Plame Wilson and Joseph C. Wilson IV against four high-level Executive Branch officials, including the Vice President of the United States and his former Chief of Staff, based on the widely-publicized disclosure of the fact that Mrs. Wilson worked as a covert operative for the Central Intelligence Agency: You can access today’s ruling at this link.

Update: In early coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Valerie Plame’s Lawsuit Dismissed.”

The Washington Post provides a news update headlined “Judge Dismisses Plame Lawsuit.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Cheney, Rove, Libby Win Dismissal of Lawsuit by Valerie Plame.”

Reuters reports that “Judge dismisses civil suit in CIA leak scandal.”

And CNN.com reports that “Judge tosses out ex-spy’s lawsuit against Cheney in CIA leak case.”

“We consider whether a service provider may change the terms of its service contract by merely posting a revised contract on its website.” So begins a per curiam opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued late yesterday in typescript form.

Second Circuit joins the D.C. Circuit in rejecting argument that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 was enacted in violation of the Bicameralism and Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution: You can access today’s Second Circuit ruling at this link.

My earlier coverage of the D.C. Circuit’s similar ruling, from May 2007, can be accessed here.

“Widener won’t wait: Longest-serving judge steps down; hoped for successor since 2001.” This Fourth Circuit-related article appears today in The Daily Record of Baltimore.

Whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess firearms is so clearly cert.-worthy that the District of Columbia’s application for additional time in which to file a petition for writ of certiorari should be denied: At “SCOTUSblog” last night, Lyle Denniston had a post pointing to this persuasive response from counsel for the parties that prevailed before the D.C. Circuit. Perhaps counsel for the District of Columbia now regrets not having raised the ground of conflicts with scheduled vacations in their recently-filed request for an extension of time.

Update: Lyle has updated his post this morning to note that the Chief Justice granted the requested extension yesterday, apparently before the plaintiffs’ opposition reached him. In any event, these extensions are routinely granted by the Justices as a matter of course.

“Because the escalation of a sentence based on undisclosed evidence raises serious due process concerns, we construe the rule to require a sentencing court either to disclose sufficient details about the evidence to give the defendant a reasonable opportunity to respond or, failing that, to refrain from relying on the evidence.” On behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton today issued an opinion that begins, “What happens when a district court, applying the advisory sentencing guidelines, not only increases a sentence based on its own fact findings but also does so on the basis of evidence never fully disclosed to the criminal defendant?”

The opinion’s listing of counsel discloses that even though both the criminal defendant and the federal prosecutor were represented by counsel, the Sixth Circuit had Law Professor Douglas A. Berman, author of the “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog, serve as court-appointed amicus on appeal.

Update: Doug’s blog post about the ruling can be accessed here.

“Dress code goes up on appeal; Napa schools challenge ruling in Redwood case”: The Napa Valley Register today contains an article that begins, “Redwood Middle School’s controversial dress code is heading to the California Court of Appeal, even before there is a final ruling in the legal challenge to the code brought by several Redwood parents and students. The Napa Valley Unified School District has decided to appeal Napa County Superior Court Ray Guadagni’s preliminary injunction, temporarily suspending the dress code at the north Napa middle school. Guadagni held earlier this month that the parents and students had a good chance of winning on their claim that the code violates free speech rights of students.”

My most recent earlier coverage can be viewed at this link.

“Padilla charges don’t measure up to accusations; A conviction in his trial wouldn’t be for alleged plot to set off ‘dirty bomb'”: This article appears today in USA Today.

“Dems grapple with appeals nominee, high court’s future”: The Hill today contains an article that begins, “Among the four appeals court nominees quietly announced by the White House late Tuesday is a candidate who could heighten Senate tensions over judicial nominees. Shalom Stone is the only nominee on this week’s slate who faces the challenge of winning over two Democratic home-state senators. Judicial appointees not OK’d by their senators through the traditional ‘blue slip’ method rarely make it to a floor vote, and both New Jersey senators yesterday appeared to be on the fence about Stone.”

“What Will the Outcome of the 2008 Election Mean for the Supreme Court? Why One Outcome Could Change the Court Profoundly; the Other, Not at All.” Edward Lazarus has this essay online today at FindLaw.