“Vacancies Whittle Away Right’s Hold On Key Court”: This front page article about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit will appear Wednesday in The Washington Post.

“Court Rejects Patient Right to Use Drugs Being Tested”: The New York Times on Wednesday will contain this article.

My earlier coverage of today’s en banc D.C. Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Litigious Judge’s Future Unclear; Plaintiff in D.C. Pants Lawsuit May Not Be Reappointed”: This article will appear Wednesday in The Washington Post.

This appeal “requires us to consider an issue on which other circuits have split and ours has not yet explicitly spoken: whether juvenile adjudications constitutionally may be used as predicate convictions to support an ACCA enhancement.” A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit today issued this decision permitting juvenile adjudications to be used as predicate convictions to support an increased sentence under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act.

“Court Rules Out Terminally Ill for Tests”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Terminally ill patients do not have a constitutional right to be treated with experimental drugs, even if the medicine is not likely to be approved before they are dead, a divided federal appeals court said Tuesday.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “New limit on rights of the dying heads to Court.”

“Under the California Constitution’s liberty of speech clause, should we review the constitutionality of an ordinance that sets closing times for adult entertainment establishments under strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or some other standard?” A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today issued an order certifying that question for resolution by the Supreme Court of California.

Horsemeat and the standards for an injunction pending appeal: The lone remaining plant in the United States that slaughtered horses to make horsemeat for human consumption was based in Illinois, and the company brought suit in federal court to challenge the constitutionality of a recent amendment to the Illinois Horse Meat Act, making it unlawful for any person in the state to slaughter a horse for human consumption.

An Illinois federal district court rejected a challenge, but today a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision explaining why it has ordered a stay of enforcement of the Illinois law pending resolution of the merits of the appeal. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner issued the majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner joined. Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook, by contrast, voted nay on the injunction pending appeal.

Unanimous three-judge Second Circuit panel overturns as contrary to law a NASD arbitration panel’s limited award of attorneys’ fees to a prevailing age discrimination claimant: The claimant had challenged the award of fees as too low and contrary to law, and today the Second Circuit agrees. What makes today’s decision noteworthy is how infrequently challenges to arbitral awards succeed in court.

In Abigail Alliance case, en banc D.C. Circuit holds that the Constitution does not provide terminally ill patients a right of access to experimental drugs that have passed limited safety trials but have not been proven safe and effective: You can access today’s en banc ruling at this link.

In today’s 8-2 ruling, the two dissenters were in the majority in the original three-judge panel’s 2-1 ruling that recognized a substantive due process right for a mentally competent, terminally ill adult patient to access potentially life-saving post-Phase I investigational new drugs, upon a doctor’s advice, even where that medication carries risks for the patient. The dissenting judge on the original three-judge panel wrote today’s majority en banc decision. My earlier coverage of the three-judge panel’s ruling can be accessed here.

The Abigail Alliance case is also noteworthy because it altered the manner in which the D.C. Circuit announces the entry of orders granting rehearing en banc, as detailed in this earlier post.

“White House Challenges Critics on Spying”: This article appears today in The New York Times, along with a news analysis headlined “Bush Still Wields the Threat of Terrorism.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “The Fear of Fear Itself.”

The Los Angeles Times today contains an article headlined “Bush administration defends spy law; The White House rejects claims that the new measure allows electronic ‘drift nets’ to snare U.S. citizens” and an editorial entitled “The politics of fear: Democrats wary of being tagged as soft on terrorism caved in on an unacceptable surveillance law.”

The Washington Post reports that “Same Agencies to Run, Oversee Surveillance Program.”

And The Boston Globe contains an editorial entitled “All tapped out on civil liberties?”

“California video game law blocked by judge; State ban on sales to minors called unconstitutional”: Edwin Garcia and Howard Mintz have this article today in The San Jose Mercury News.

And The San Francisco Chronicle reports today that “State ban overturned on violent video game sales to minors.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California at this link.

“Court OKs Vote-Swapping Sites”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “California wrongly shut down Web sites that brokered vote trading between backers of 2000 presidential candidates Al Gore and Ralph Nader days before the closest presidential election in U.S. history, a federal appeals court ruled Monday.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Ninth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Google Maps redraw the realm of privacy; As street-level photos are added to the site, fears of intrusion arise”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Milberg Weiss loses bid to dismiss fraud charges; A judge rejects the law firm’s contention that it didn’t illegally pay kickbacks to plaintiffs”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

“Democrats happy to let Gonzales dangle; They feel that if the attorney general remains in office, voters are likely to focus on Bush in 2008, not the GOP nominee”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Gitmo Inmate Wants to Stay Put”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Poisonous Choices, Women at Risk”: Today in The New York Times, columnist Judith Warner has an op-ed (TimesSelect temporary pass-through link) that begins, “When the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 to uphold the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act this spring, the ambivalently pro-choice public was largely quiescent, believing, as Congress had previously ruled, that the procedure was ‘gruesome and inhuman,’ medically unnecessary, highly controversial in the medical community and so rare as to be little missed.”

“Phone import ban against Qualcomm upheld; Rival Broadcom calls decision a victory for patent holders”: This article appears today in The San Diego Union-Tribune.

The New York Times reports today that “U.S. Supports Patent Ruling in a Setback for Qualcomm.”

And The Wall Street Journal reports that “Bush Administration Upholds Ban On Phones With Qualcomm Chips; Patent Win for Broadcom Could Disrupt Rollouts By Sprint, Other Carriers.”

“$1.5 Billion Verdict Against Microsoft Is Set Aside”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “A federal district court judge delivered a major setback to Alcatel-Lucent on Monday by setting aside a jury’s $1.5 billion judgment against Microsoft in a patent infringement lawsuit over digital music technology. Alcatel-Lucent’s lawsuit against Microsoft had produced the largest patent judgment on record.”

The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Microsoft prevails over Alcatel in MP3 patent case; A court win by Alcatel is reversed, freeing many companies from digital music liability.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that “Microsoft Damage Award Voided.”

The Times of London reports that “Alcatel-Lucent to appeal Microsoft fine u-turn; French telecoms equipment maker argues that jury’s original $1.5bn fine should have stood in MP3 patent case.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Microsoft Judge Negates Alcatel-Lucent MP3 Patent Win.”

And Reuters reports that “Judge overturns $1.5 bln ruling against Microsoft.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California at this link.

“McCain Bids for an Issue on Property; Declares Eminent Domain Deserves the Spotlight”: This article appears today in The New York Sun, along with a related editorial entitled “McCain’s Constitution.”

“An Ohio Supreme Court Case Interprets the State’s Anti-Same-Sex-Marriage Amendment: How the Court Protected Unmarried, Cohabiting Couples from Domestic Violence Despite the Amendment.” Joanna Grossman has this essay online today at FindLaw.