Available online from law.com: An article reports that “Discrimination Case Opens Door to Internet ADA Claims; Judge’s ruling moves case forward against Target Corp.” My earlier coverage is here.

And in other news, “2nd Circuit Rejects Malpractice Suit Against Plaintiffs Firms.”

“Justices to hear bond case; U.S. Supreme Court agrees to rule on Guam borrowing”: This article appears in Thursday’s edition of The Pacific Daily News of Guam.

“Judge Rejects Ashcroft’s Immunity Claim”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft could be called to testify in a lawsuit that claims a student was wrongly imprisoned in a computer terrorism case, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.”

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

“Lesbian asks court to grant status as boy’s third parent; Case could grant London woman’s partner the same rights as child’s biological father”: This article appears today in The Toronto Globe and Mail.

“The Blind Leading the Willing: A compromise between those who don’t care and those who don’t want to know.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Judges in blackmail case face dismissal”: Thursday’s edition of The Times of London contains an article that begins, “Two immigration judges were facing the prospect of dismissal last night after a lurid blackmail trial exposed their love triangle with a Brazilian cleaner who worked illegally for both of them.” Thursday’s newspaper also contains articles headlined “The judge, the other judge, their cleaner and her hitman husband; The pair’s sexual shenanigans are unlikely to prompt an inquiry, but some judges think the judiciary has been tainted“; “Revelations that destroyed two legal reputations“; and “She started by marrying a serial killer.”

BBC News reports that “Cleaner found guilty of blackmail; A cleaner has been convicted of blackmailing a female judge and stealing intimate videos from her male colleague.”

Thursday’s edition of The Guardian (UK) contains articles headlined “Guilty: the cleaner, the thief, the blackmailer and the lover” and “Sex, drugs and videotape: flammable mix that provided ammunition for blackmail; Immigration judges’ cleaner in UK illegally; Husband is serving jail sentence for murder.”

Thursday’s edition of The Independent (UK) contains an article headlined “Sex, lies, and the stolen videotapes that sent a cleaner to jail.”

And The Telegraph (UK) on Thursday contains an editorial headlined “Missing identities make a mockery of the law” that begins, “It was a case that had everything — two judges who were lovers allegedly being blackmailed by a sultry Brazilian who became the mistress of one of them, spiced up (as if further spice were needed) with claims of drug-taking, sex videos and talk of a hired killer. What a heady mix.”

“Pa. Woman Indicted on Obscenity Charges”: The AP provides a report that begins, “A woman who authorities say ran a Web site that published graphic fictional tales about the torture and sexual abuse of children has been indicted on federal obscenity charges.”

“Slave Descendants Try to Revive Lawsuit”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Lawyers for slave descendants asked a federal appeals court Wednesday to a revive a landmark reparations case that demands 17 of the nation’s insurers and banks publicize and pay for their roles in the country’s slave trade.”

The case was argued today before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit consisting of Circuit Judges Richard A. Posner, Frank H. Easterbrook, and Daniel A. Manion. You can download the oral argument audio by clicking here (mp3 format). And you can access the briefs and appendices filed in the case via this link.

“Legislating Supreme Court TV”: Bruce Peabody will have this op-ed Thursday in The Christian Science Monitor.

My earlier law.com essay on this topic was headlined “Should Congress Mandate Supreme Court TV? Will original understanding go high-definition?”

Religious protesters opposed to removal of Ten Commandments monuments lose court challenge to U.S Marshals Service’s limitation on demonstrations at Washington, DC “Red Mass” ceremony for judges: U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued this decision today.

Federal district court dismisses all but one claim asserted in the State of Connecticut’s lawsuit challenging the federal No Child Left Behind Act as an unlawful unfunded mandate that costs more than the State received in federal aid: You can access today’s ruling by U.S. District Judge Mark R. Kravitz at this link.

The Connecticut Attorney General’s web site provides access to additional documents filed in the case.

“1 First Amendment case on Court docket”: Tony Mauro has this essay online at the First Amendment Center. Next up, the Second Amendment Center will complain that there are zero Second Amendment cases on the U.S. Supreme Court‘s docket.

“Detainee Bill in Final Stages; White House Appears to Be Winning Wide Legal Latitude”: The Washington Post today contains this article, along with an article headlined “No Compromise On Wiretap Bill; Focus Now on House Version.” In addition, the newspaper contains an editorial entitled “Rush to Error: Congress should not allow itself to be pushed into approving a flawed plan for holding terrorist suspects,” while William H. Taft IV has an op-ed entitled “Accounting for the Detainees.”

And The New York Times reports today that “Deal Likely on Detainees but Not on Wiretapping.”

“Wacky Tobacco Lawsuit: The class-action suit alleges that smokers were duped by ‘light’ cigarette marketing.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Abortion Vote in House May Be Too Late to Boost GOP; The Senate may not act on the consent measure, sought by conservatives, before the fall election”: The Los Angeles Times today contains an article that begins, “Scrambling to pass anti-abortion legislation before they recess for fall congressional elections, House Republicans on Tuesday won passage of a bill that would make it a federal crime to evade one state’s parental consent laws by taking a minor to another state for an abortion.”

“House Passes Measure on Religion Suits”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “The House passed a bill yesterday that would bar judges from awarding legal fees to the American Civil Liberties Union and similar groups that sue municipalities for violating the Constitution’s ban on government establishment of religion.”

“Blogging the Hand That Feeds You”: The New York Times contains this article today.

“Texas Case Involving Marital Counseling Is Latest to Test Line Between Church and State”: This article about a case argued yesterday before the Supreme Court of Texas appears today in The New York Times.

The Austin American-Statesman reports today that “Lawyers argue over pastor’s role; Texas Supreme Court to decide whether lower court can hear case against pastor.”

And The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that “Justices hear arguments in suit against pastor.”

Via the Supreme Court of Texas’ web site, you can access online the docket entries, the briefs filed in the case, and the oral argument audio (mp3 format).

“Kerkorian Appeals Ruling Backing Daimler-Chrysler Merger”: The New York Times contains this article today. I observed this oral argument yesterday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (this case was argued first; my client’s appeal was third on the argument list), and I am predicting affirmance in the main appeal, although on the cross-appeal the $550,000 fine for the late submission of significant documents will likely be reversed.

“How a Reviled Court System Has Outlasted Critics”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

Three generations of mistrials are enough? The New York Times provides a news update headlined “Judge Declares 3rd Mistrial in Gotti Case.” You can also access online that newspaper’s coverage of the first and second mistrials.

On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issues its ruling in Williams v. Mohawk Industries, Inc.: You can access today’s ruling at this link.

Once upon a time (see here and here), this case was viewed as an important vehicle for further refinement of the Supreme Court’s RICO jurisprudence. And then, all of the sudden, it wasn’t.

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Hurdles Cleared for Detainee Legislation” and “Kan. AG Alarms Abortion-Rights Groups.”

“Washington Courthouse to Reopen”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A federal courthouse within sight of the Capitol was set to reopen early Wednesday afternoon after authorities determined that an abandoned suitcase at the building entrance did not contain a bomb.”

“The Threat to Judicial Independence”: Today in The Wall Street Journal, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has an op-ed (pass-through link) in which she writes that “the breadth and intensity of rage currently being leveled at the judiciary may be unmatched in American history.”

Perhaps the appellant still qualified for non-meaningful appellate review? One talent that an appellate lawyer is supposed to have is the ability to phrase issues on appeal in a manner that requires those issues to be resolved in favor of the client.

More problematic, perhaps, is when a court of last resort, in granting discretionary appellate review, frames the issue in a case in a manner where the issue can only be resolved one way. In such an instance, what’s the use of hearing argument on the matter?

What brings these thoughts to mind is the Pennsylvania Supreme Court‘s phrasing of its own question presented in an order granting review issued last Thursday. The order presents the following question for resolution:

Did Appellant waive her right to appellate review by raising a quantity of issues sufficient to impair meaningful appellate review?

I guess the question as phrased allows the party opposing waiver to contend that just because the quantity of issues raised was sufficient to impair meaningful appellate review does not mean that the quantity necessarily succeeded in impairing meaningful appellate review. Perhaps the party opposing waiver could argue that it nevertheless retained an ability to receive non-meaningful appellate review, instead of no appellate review whatsoever. Or, consider the related argument that the mere impairment of appellate review is no reason to preclude it entirely.

I wrote about this general subject in the January 2005 installment of my monthly “Upon Further Review” column published in The Legal Intelligencer under the headline “Attempting To Preserve 104 Issues For Appeal Results In The Preservation Of None.”

“ABA, White House at Odds over Judicial Nominee”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition.”

And today in The Houston Chronicle, columnist Cragg Hines has an op-ed entitled “Super-bad Bush nominees get a needless day in court.”

“Justices to clarify deportation rules; Court’s decision will help determine what crimes are enough to expel legal immigrants”: Patty Reinert has this article today in The Houston Chronicle.

“Del. judge gets Senate panel’s OK; Jordan clears hurdle toward lifetime appointment to 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals”: This article appears today in The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware.

And The Herald-Sun of Durham, North Carolina reports today that “Quorum lacking for N.C. judicial nominee.”

“Abortion, Race Cases Test Roberts, Alito Adherence to Precedent”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News provides this report.

“Judicial nominee defends himself before Senate panel; Jackson lawyer one of several controversial figures being considered”: The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi contains this article today.

“Soros favors curbs on judges’ travels”: This article appears today in The Washington Times.

“Some suffering permissible during execution, judge says”: Howard Mintz has this article today in The San Jose Mercury News.

Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Execution method not good enough for a dog, experts say.”

In The Los Angeles Times, Henry Weinstein and Maura Dolan have an article headlined “Sparring Over Lethal Injection in California; At a hearing on how California inmates are executed, an expert says they might awaken during the process and die painfully.”

And in The Sacramento Bee, Claire Cooper reports that “Experts testify on drugs for execution.”

“Seeking Judicial Control; Panel Urged To Switch Rule-Making Power To Legislature”: Today in The Hartford Courant, Lynne Tuohy has an article that begins, “Speakers at a public hearing before the Governor’s Commission on Judicial Reform Tuesday overwhelmingly urged members to recommend a constitutional amendment to strip the judicial branch of its rule-making authority and vest it in the legislature instead.”

“Justices to Hear Case on Use of Union Fees”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.

Today in The Washington Post, Charles Lane reports that “Justices to Decide on Use Of Union Fees for Politics.”

And in The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that “High Court Takes Deportation Case; It will decide whether auto theft is a felony that warrants expelling an immigrant in California.”