“Fifteen public school teachers seek to enjoin their respective school districts from releasing their names in response to a public records request by the Seattle Times Company for the names of teachers alleged to have committed sexual misconduct against students.” So begins the majority opinion that the Supreme Court of Washington State issued today.

And the majority opinion concludes:

We reverse the Court of Appeals in part. We hold a teacher’s identity should be released under the [Public Disclosure Act] only when alleged sexual misconduct has been substantiated or when that teacher’s conduct results in some form of discipline, even if only a reprimand. Letters of direction and related documents must be disclosed under the PDA, but where a letter simply seeks to guide future conduct, does not identify an incident of substantiated misconduct, and does not subject the teacher to any form of restriction or discipline, a teacher’s name and other identifying information must be redacted.

Five of the court’s nine justices joined in the majority opinion, while a sixth concurred only in the result without separate opinion. Two other justices joined in a dissenting opinion and would have held that “reports of allegations of sexual misconduct against children by their teachers, including the teachers’ identities, must be disclosed whether the sexual misconduct is substantiated or not.” The remaining justice did not participate in the ruling.

“Some complain Law Review biased against gay marriage”: The Forum of Fargo, North Dakota today contains an article that begins, “Some North Dakota attorneys are outraged over the latest North Dakota Law Review, saying the scholarly publication was hijacked by national religious rights activists bent on stopping gay marriage.” You can view a list of the articles in question, and the names of the authors of those articles, by clicking here.

“US judge: White House aides can be subpoenaed.” The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “President Bush’s top advisers are not immune from congressional subpoenas, a federal judge ruled Thursday in an unprecedented dispute between the two political branches. The House Judiciary Committee wants to question the president’s chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and former legal counsel Harriet Miers, about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys. But President Bush says they are immune from such subpoenas. They say Congress can’t force them to testify or turn over documents.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia at this link.

One more reason to turn off your word processor’s “auto-correct” feature: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit today issued its ruling in United States v. Teh.

The Teh appeal involves a defendant’s challenge to his conviction for having fraudulently imported counterfeit copies of motion picture DVDs.

“Second look at bid for new Nacchio trial; Full appeals court to decide whether conviction stands”: The Rocky Mountain News today contains an article that begins, “The Department of Justice scored a victory Wednesday in its ongoing case against Joe Nacchio, as the full 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to consider whether the former Qwest CEO’s conviction should stand. Prosecutors asked the full panel to hear the case after a three- judge panel ruled earlier this year that the conviction should be thrown out and a new trial held. The court, which grants only a handful of such requests each year, set oral arguments for Sept. 24.”

And today’s edition of The Denver Post contains articles headlined “A full review for Nacchio verdict; A win for Feds” and “Retirees cheer Nacchio decision.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s order granting rehearing en banc can be accessed here.

“Alabama Supreme Court delays execution of Thomas Arthur; state can’t find rape kit evidence”: This article appears today in The Birmingham News.

And The New York Times reports today that “Court Votes to Postpone an Execution in Alabama.”

“Witness: Hamdan not part of ‘elite’; A defense expert testified that Osama bin Laden’s driver had none of the skills to qualify to be an al Qaeda terrorist.” Carol Rosenberg has this article today in The Miami Herald.

Today in The Los Angeles Times, Carol J. Williams reports that “At Guantanamo, Hamdan defense tries to block agent’s testimony; The team wants allegations that the Yemeni confessed to a Bin Laden loyalty oath excluded, saying he had been coerced.”

The New York Times reports that “Lawyers for Detainee Assert Coercion.”

And The Washington Post reports that “9/11 Architect Is Unlikely to Aid Defense Of Ex-Driver.”

“Federal judge says cross can remain on San Diego’s Mt. Soledad; ACLU says opponents may appeal the decision; The symbol is part of a federally owned war memorial”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

My earlier coverage of Monday’s ruling appears at this link.

“Private jury pick sought for Nichols”: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution today contains an article that begins, “Brian Nichols’ defense team wants to conceal from public view one of the most crucial steps in his trial because he contends it is prejudicing potential jurors against him. In court papers filed Wednesday, Nichols and his lawyers asked Superior Court Judge James Bodiford to bar reporters from the courtroom until a jury is selected for the death penalty trial. The request troubled some experts because, in effect, it meant a shroud of secrecy would cover the process of deciding who would be an acceptable juror — the process that often decides the fate of a case.”

“Vote on Journalist Shield Stalled; Senate GOP Won’t Debate Until Oil and Gas Bill Is Considered”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“Workers’ Religious Freedom vs. Patients’ Rights; Proposal Would Deny Federal Money if Employees Must Provide Care to Which They Object”: The Washington Post today contains a front page article that begins, “A Bush administration proposal aimed at protecting health-care workers who object to abortion, and to birth-control methods they consider tantamount to abortion, has escalated a bitter debate over the balance between religious freedom and patients’ rights.”

“Showdown over a Texas execution: The state plans to execute a Mexican national on Aug. 5, despite objections of the World Court.” Warren Richey has this article today in The Christian Science Monitor.

And today’s edition of The Washington Post contains an editorial entitled “Buying Time in Texas: Tuesday’s execution of a Mexican national should be delayed while Congress resolves a treaty dispute.”

“SJC’s longest-serving member to retire; Greaney had key role in landmark decisions”: The Boston Globe today contains an article that begins, “Justice John M. Greaney, the longest-serving member of the state Supreme Judicial Court and a pivotal vote in some of its most significant decisions, announced yesterday that he will retire by year’s end, creating the potential for a new dynamic on the state’s highest court.”

And The Boston Herald reports today that “Justice retires, gov can fill seat.”

“The Supreme Court Is Wrong On the Death Penalty”: Today in The Wall Street Journal, Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe has an op-ed that begins, “It’s not often that the U.S. Supreme Court is asked by a state and the federal government to reconsider a case it has just handed down because it missed key evidence. But that is what is happening now in Kennedy v. Louisiana.”

The op-ed concludes, “The Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause should not be construed in a manner that puts it on a collision course with the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. The Supreme Court would do well to take that overriding consideration into account as it decides whether to revisit its seriously misinformed as well as morally misguided ruling.”