“Prisons to Restore Purged Religious Books”: This article will appear Thursday in The New York Times.

“Gov’t Appealing Indecency Ruling”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The government will ask the Supreme Court to review an appeals court decision that invalidated the Federal Communication Commission’s policy on the broadcast of profanity.”

And Variety reports that “FCC seeks Supreme Court review; Agency fights for policy on fleeting expletives.”

My earlier coverage of the Second Circuit’s ruling from June 2007 appears here, here, and here.

“Ky. case may settle issue of execution; Lethal-injection drug combo challenged”: The Louisville Courier-Journal contains this article today.

The Lexington Herald-Leader reports today that “U.S. Supreme Court to review lethal injection; Ruling in Kentucky case could have wide effect.”

David G. Savage and Henry Weinstein of The Los Angeles Times report that “High court to hear lethal injection case; Justices may ban commonly used chemical concoctions that may cause dying inmates suffering, but ruling would not prohibit practice.”

Joan Biskupic of USA Today has a front page article headlined “Justices to weigh lethal injection; Review may affect executions set for fall.”

Patty Reinert of The Houston Chronicle reports that “Justices to rule whether method is cruel, unusual.”

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that “Court execution review won’t move Georgia.”

And The New York Sun reports that “Capital Case To Test 9 on Life’s Value; Execution Method at Issue, Political Implications Seen.”

“High court takes case on voter ID in Indiana; Ruling on state law may affect elections across the U.S.” This article appears today in The Indianapolis Star.

The Louisville Courier-Journal reports today that “Justices to rule on Indiana’s voter-ID law; Critics call rule an unfair burden.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court to hear voter ID case; A GOP-backed Indiana law requires photo identification to be shown at the polls. In their appeal, Democrats say the policy discourages voters.”

Joan Biskupic of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court will consider voter ID law; Concerns clash on rights, fraud.”

And The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that “U.S. high court case may affect state voter ID.”

“Supreme Court to Consider Use of Voter ID; Justices Will Also Hear Lethal-Injection Case”: Robert Barnes has this front page article today in The Washington Post.

“High court botched death reviews; In justifying death sentences, Georgia’s Supreme Court has repeatedly cited overturned cases”: Today’s installment of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s series on the death penalty can be accessed here.

“Judge rules in favor of Mayfield challenge”: The Oregonian provides a news update that begins, “A federal judge in Portland declared a portion of the USA Patriot Act unconstitutional Wednesday. U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Patriot Act violated the constitutional ban on unreasonable search and seizure. The decision is a victory for Brandon Mayfield, a Beaverton lawyer mistakenly linked to the 2004 Madrid train bombings because the FBI botched a botched fingerprint match.”

And The Associated Press reports that “2 Patriot Act Provisions Ruled Unlawful.”

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

“The Law Blog Lunches with Justice Kennedy”: Amir Efrati has this post today at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog.”

“Executions Set Despite Ky. Case Review”: The AP provides a report from Texas that begins, “Lawyers for a convicted murderer set to die Thursday in the nation’s busiest death penalty state hurriedly prepared appeals Wednesday challenging lethal injection after the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would review a Kentucky case on the issue. An execution by lethal injection was also scheduled Thursday in Alabama, with lawyers for the inmate seeking a delay for the same reason. As attorneys for death row inmates scramble, legal experts predict it’s unlikely the Supreme Court will impose a national moratorium on lethal injections while it considers the Kentucky case.”

“Supreme Court candidate also gave back raise, spokeswoman says”: The Associated Press provides this report from Pennsylvania.

Ninth Circuit overturns preliminary injunction that prohibited defendant “from making any comments that could be construed as to disparage [a trademark]”: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Freecycle Network, Inc. v. Oey at this link.

At “The Volokh Conspiracy” blog, Eugene Volokh previously had several posts (see, in particular, here and here) discussing the case and linking to background material.

“Court affirms Vonage infringed 2 Verizon patents”: Reuters provides this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued today.

Update: And in other coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court Partially Affirms Vonage Verdict.”

“Judge throws out alleged rape victim’s federal lawsuit”: The Omaha World-Herald today contains an article that begins, “A federal judge threw out a lawsuit challenging a state judge’s order barring the use of ‘rape’ and other words in the trial of a man accused of sexual assault.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Judge Tosses Lawsuit Over Word ‘Rape.’”

I have posted online at this link yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska.

“Disney wins lawsuit ruling on Pooh rights; An appellate court says the family of the cartoon character’s creator committed ‘egregious misconduct’ in seeking evidence”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

Bloomberg News reports that “Disney Wins Ruling in 16-Year Battle Over Pooh Rights.”

The Associated Press reports that “Court of Appeal denies request to reinstate Pooh lawsuit.”

Reuters reports that “California court sides with Disney in Pooh case.”

And Variety reports that “Disney wins ‘Winnie’ royalties war; California court affirms dismissal of ‘Pooh’ case.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District, Division Four, at this link.

“Lawyer finds documents suggesting Jesse James couldn’t fight his way out of a lawsuit”: Monday’s edition of The Kansas City Star contained this article.

“Experian ‘negligent,’ judges say; A federal appeals panel slams the credit reporting firm, saying it should have fixed errors in a Los Angeles man’s record”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

Yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on panel rehearing, can be accessed here. Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski wrote yesterday’s ruling. By contrast, Judge Kozinski dissented from the panel’s original per curiam decision, even though that per curiam decision contained stylistic indications that it too had been written by Judge Kozinski.

“Does affirmative action hurt minorities? Racial preferences may be setting up many black and Latino law students for failure.” Law Professors Vikram Amar and Richard H. Sander have this op-ed today in The Los Angeles Times.

“A Street Performer Crusades for the First Amendment”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “What is the purpose of the First Amendment? That was the question before a judge in Manhattan Criminal Court yesterday, as a street performer named Reverend Billy, a k a William Talen, faced charges of harassing police officers in Union Square Park by reciting the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

“Nominee for C.I.A. Counsel Withdraws”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “The White House on Tuesday withdrew the nomination of John A. Rizzo to become the Central Intelligence Agency’s top lawyer amid mounting opposition from Democrats over his role in the harsh interrogation of C.I.A. detainees.”

“Senate Panel to Consider Shield Bill for Reporters”: Today in The New York Times, Adam Liptak has an article that begins, “A bill that for the first time would give journalists limited protection from efforts to force them to reveal their sources in the federal courts will be taken up by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, and its sponsors said its prospects are good.”

“Dispute Stymies Guantanamo Terror Trials; Chief Prosecutor Claims Interference; Office Is in Disarray”: Jess Bravin has this article today in The Wall Street Journal.

“New York Cases Emerge as Key in Coming Term”: Today in The New York Sun, Joseph Goldstein has an article that begins, “When the Supreme Court kicks off its new term next week with two appeals out of New York, judges and education officials based in the city will be paying close attention.”

“When Is A Class Action Superior to Multiple Individual Lawsuits?: Part Two in a Two-Part Series on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Decertification of a Nationwide Vioxx Class Action.” Anthony J. Sebok has this essay online today at FindLaw. Part one can be accessed here.

“Thomas’s Impact on Legal Debates Exceeds High-Court Influence”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News provides this report.

Earlier this month, The West Virginia Record reported that “Thomas talks courts, sports at Marshall.”

The Parthenon of Marshall University reported that “Thomas shares views of Supreme Court; Justice speaks to AARP members, public.”

And The Associated Press reported that “In W.Va. visit, Clarence Thomas blasts critics of court.”