“Investors ask Supreme Court to sanction claims”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers provides a report that begins, “Investors will confront corporations on Tuesday when the Supreme Court considers the highest-profile business case of the year.”

Investor’s Business Daily reports that “Supreme Court Set To Hear Major Case On Securities Lawsuits Vs. Third Parties.”

CNBC.com reports that “Supreme Court Hears Landmark Investor Suit.”

Reuters provides a report headlined “Lifting the Lid-Top US court weighs scope of fraud suits.”

This evening’s broadcast of the public radio program “Marketplace” contained an audio segment entitled “Court to hear Enron shareholders’ case” (transcript with link to audio).

Financial Times contains an item headlined “Lawyer liability.”

And online at law.com, Richard A. Booth has an essay entitled “In ‘Stoneridge,’ the Supreme Court Should Focus on Who Really Gains.”

“Bush wants ideological fights, not judges”: Glenn Sugameli has this commentary at Politico.com.

“Court takes up shareholder rights; In its biggest business case of the term, the high court examines the scope of investors’ rights to sue in the wake of corporate fraud”: Warren Richey will have this article Tuesday in The Christian Science Monitor.

“Justice Thomas and the First Amendment”: The First Amendment Center has today posted this online symposium.

“Thomas on Precedent”: At her “Legalities” blog, ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg has this post today based on her recent series of interviews with Justice Clarence Thomas.

“Blawg Review #129”: Posted here today at “HealthBlawg.”

“U.S. Supreme Court Case May Be ‘Securities Law’s Roe v. Wade'”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News provides this report.

“On the Horizon: More Powers for Some Federal Judges?” Today’s installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com can be accessed here.

My column focuses on a provision in a pending piece of legislation, which has already passed the U.S. Senate, that purports to give a senior circuit judge “all the powers of a judge” on the court on which he or she serves. The specific issue that I discuss is whether that provision would enable senior status federal appellate judges to cast votes on whether cases should be reheard en banc and/or to participate in deciding the merits of cases that have been granted en banc review even where the senior judges had not served on the original three-judge panel that issued the initial decision in the case.

“Bush faces court ruling over CIA prisons”: Today in Financial Times, Patti Waldmeir and Demetri Sevastopulo have an article that begins, “The administration of President George W. Bush could face a further challenge to its anti-terrorism policies from the Supreme Court, which is expected to say on Tuesday whether it will take up a case involving US secret prisons overseas.”

“Murder case pits Texas against Bush; As U.S. justices consider local killer’s consular issue, control of courts is at stake”: Patty Reinert has this article today in The Houston Chronicle.

Today in The Chicago Tribune, James Oliphant reports that “It’s U.S. versus Texas in death penalty case; Supreme Court to rule whether international treaty trumps state law.”

And The Guardian (UK) reports that “Bush tries to halt execution of convicted killer in Texas.”

“Could Kent lose his bench? Judge may face Congress over abuse allegations.” Lise Olsen and Harvey Rice had this article yesterday in The Houston Chronicle.

“Appeals Court To Hear Atlantic Yards Case”: The New York Sun today contains an article that begins, “Opponents of the $4 billion Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn will argue before a federal appeals court tomorrow in one of their few remaining attempts to challenge the use of eminent domain for the project.”

“The College of William & Mary Law School hosts a panel discussion on the makeup of the Roberts Court”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times served as moderator of this panel discussion (RealPlayer required), which was featured on Saturday’s broadcast of C-SPAN’s “America & the Courts.”

“Kevin Merida, Author, ‘Supreme Discomfort’ discusses his profile of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas”: This segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on Friday’s broadcast of C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal.”

“Clarence Thomas Book Party”: C-SPAN2’s “Book TV” was there, and you can view the event online, on-demand by clicking here (RealPlayer required).

“Do the crime, do how much time? The Supreme Court should find an equilibrium between judicial discretion and strict guidelines on criminal sentences.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

‘State secrets’ case may get airing; The U.S. says security will be at stake if the Supreme Court decides to hear the suit of an apparent CIA victim of mistaken identity”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Senate Bill Aims to Define Who Is a Journalist”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “The Free Flow of Information Act of 2007 is the grand title attached to the bill that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee last week with bipartisan support. It is better known as the reporter’s shield law.”

“The Roberts Court: The Rule of Law, Not Ideology.” Law Professor Steven G. Calabresi had this letter to the editor yesterday in The New York Times.

“Fewer suits charge securities fraud; Plaintiffs’ lawyers find it harder ‘to make a living'”: Today’s edition of USA Today contains an article that begins, “Once-thriving securities-fraud lawsuits, hailed by shareholders and bashed by businesses, are facing an onslaught of legal challenges that could cripple the controversial class actions. The number of federal securities-fraud lawsuits is steadily falling. Businesses are stepping up their assault on what they call frivolous litigation. Government investigations are chilling plaintiff’s attorneys. And Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a hotly debated case that may greatly narrow the scope of such lawsuits.”

In addition, the newspaper contains an editorial entitled “Must fighting bogus lawsuits mean ignoring blatant fraud? Immunity for some in fraud cases leaves many investors vulnerable.” And John Engler has an op-ed entitled “Say no to trial lawyers: Unending securities litigation would not help shareholders.”

“The Kennedy Court”: ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg was a guest on the most recent broadcast of “The Journal Editorial Report.” You can access the transcript by clicking here.