Programming note: My son and I will be attending an event this evening in Baltimore that will have me away from the computer for a bit. Additional posts will appear online here on Friday.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denies request by Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson to file their civil action complaint without including their home address: You can access today’s ruling by U.S. District Judge John D. Bates at this link.

“[M]ay New Jersey open prisoners’ legal mail outside of the prisoners’ presence pursuant to a state policy intended to protect the safety and security of its prisons by reducing the risk of anthrax contamination?” Today a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit answers “no” in an opinion that you can access here.

“The judge and the ACLU”: This editorial appears today in The Chicago Tribune.

That newspaper today also contains an op-ed by Law Professor Geoffrey R. Stone entitled “An independent and fearless judiciary.”

Penis pump used in court (as evidence): The Chicago Sun-Times reports today that “Evidence ruled sufficient in penis pump case.”

And The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Officials: Man Says Penis Pump Is a Bomb.”

National Conference of Bar Examiners wins $11.9 million copyright infringement judgment against owners of PMBR bar review course: Tuesday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania can be accessed at this link.

The court’s ruling also includes the following provision: “Defendants, their employees, and agents are enjoined from taking any Multistate Bar Examination for any purpose other than to obtain bar admission in the jurisdiction in which the examination is being given.”

Seventh Circuit affirms $4 million Lanham Act verdict in favor of R.J. Reynolds against Cigarettes Cheaper!, operator of a chain of retail outlets that had reimported “gray market” Reynolds products for domestic sale: You can access today’s opinion, written by Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook, at this link. Today’s ruling also affirms judgments in favor of Reynolds on Cigarettes Cheaper!’s antitrust counterclaims arising under the Sherman and Robinson-Patman Acts.

Today’s rulings of note from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: In a decision issued today, the court rejected a federal criminal defendant’s constitutional challenge to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The challenge argued that the law did not constitute an appropriate delegation of congressional authority to the executive branch. The defendant had pleaded guilty to transferring money into Iraq on three specific occasions in 1999 and 2000, in violation of Executive Orders and regulations issued pursuant to the IEEPA, but the defendant’s plea agreement permitted him to pursue a constitutional challenge to the law.

And in a separate ruling issued today, the court reversed a federal district court’s order refusing to certify for class action status certain issues presented in a lawsuit challenging Nassau County (N.Y.) Correctional Center’s blanket strip search policy for newly admitted misdemeanor detainees.

“GMU’s law seminars are fruitful and nonpartisan”: Today in The Roanoke Times, Charles J. Goetz has an op-ed that begins, “If one believed certain sources, the nation’s judges are being brainwashed at propaganda seminars that are staffed by shills and bent to the behest of dirty-money bankrollers.”

“Hecht faulted for double standard; Justice is challenging a rebuke for ethics rules he helped write, lawyer charges”: The Austin American-Statesman today contains an article that begins, “Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht was faulted Wednesday for raising a legal challenge to ethics rules that he helped write only after he was rebuked for violating the standards. Hecht did nothing while five other state judges were rebuked under the same standards in the past six years, said Mark Alexander, lawyer for the state regulatory agency that issued the ethics reprimand.”

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports today that “Attorney says justice had double standard.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Panel Considers Reprimand of Texas Justice.”

Dwarfs vs. Justices, part three: Following up on my report from the other day, which itself followed-up on this interesting report from Reuters, on Sunday columnist David Grimes had an op-ed entitled “Not stupid no more” in The Sarasota Herald-Tribune.

The Kansas City Star on Sunday reported on the results of its own local polling into whether the seven dwarfs are better-known than the nine constitutional expositors.

And not to be outdone, Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. apparently commented on the matter in recent remarks that he delivered to the graduating class of the Police Academy at Essex County College, according to an article headlined “Police Academy graduates 46 at ECC ceremony” published yesterday in The News-Record of Union, New Jersey.

“Slain Lawyer’s Wife Testifies in District”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “The wife of a lawyer killed this month in a townhouse near Dupont Circle testified yesterday before a grand jury investigating the death, according to a source familiar with the inquiry.”

“A Matter of Appearances: Before ruling on the Bush administration’s wiretapping program, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor should have disclosed any potential conflicts of interest.” This editorial appears today in The New York Times.

“Tax Law Ruling by Court May Encourage New Challenges”: Bloomberg News provides this report.

Josh Gerstein is reporting: Today in The New York Sun, he has articles headlined “Doctor in Va. Drug-Trafficking Case Granted New Trial” and “Texas Judge Renews Criticism In Case of Missing Silicosis X-Rays.”

Available online from law.com: T.R. Goldman reports that “ABA Rating for 5th Circuit Nominee Angers Specter.”

In other news, “9th Circuit Rejects Claim That Judge Had Conflict in Trademark Cases.”

An article reports that “D.C. Police Maintain Focus on House Where Lawyer Was Murdered.”

And Henry C. Su has an essay entitled “The Future of Obviousness: Supreme Court to examine validity of ‘motivation-suggestion-teaching’ test in highly anticipated case.”