“Questionnaires Test Judge Candidates’ Views”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered.”

“Court won’t rethink ‘Mary Doe’ abortion case”: Bill Mears provides this report at CNN.com.

“Lawyers: Possible Deal for Sniper Malvo.” The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Convicted Washington-area sniper Lee Boyd Malvo is seeking a broad plea agreement in which he would plead guilty to other 2002 shootings that authorities have linked him to, defense attorneys and Maryland prosecutors said Tuesday.”

“Court: UPS Discriminated Against Deaf.” David Kravets of The Associated Press provides this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

“Kaufman alleges that the procedure for assigning appeals among panels of judges in New York’s Second Department of the Appellate Division violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment because it permits court staff to assign cases to panels of judges on a non-transparent, discretionary basis.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today issued a decision in which the “Discussion” section of the court’s opinion begins, “Even the relief now sought by Kaufman would be so intrusive in the administration of the New York court system that we must, based on applicable precedent, abstain.”

The National Legal Scholars Law Firm represented appellant Kaufman on appeal.

She’s not just sitting by designation on the coasts: I am reliably advised that along with guest stints on the Second and Ninth Circuits, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor will be sitting by designation soon with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. I’m particularly fond of the Eighth Circuit myself, because it has invited me to visit on two separate speaking appearances.

“The Eyes of the Law: Leading Blawgers at Lunch.” This post appears today at “Above the Law.”

“Prosecutor naked at work; Security cameras see plenty of Hamilton official”: The Cincinnati Enquirer contains this article today.

“Update on Padilla motion to dismiss for outrageous government conduct”: This post appears today at “Southern District of Florida Blog.”

“Court refuses to reopen 1973 abortion ruling”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

And in today’s other news from the Court, The Associated Press provides reports headlined “Supreme Court Considers Indictment Flaws“; “Court Rejects Roe V. Wade Companion Case“; “Court Turns Down Case of Ex-Nazi Guard“; “Supreme Court Won’t Hear Tobacco Case“; and “High Court Won’t Consider Asbestos Case.”

You can access today’s U.S. Supreme Court Order List at this link.

“Judicial discretion at stake in high court; U.S. Supreme Court to hear case stemming from sentencing of former police officer”: This article appears today in The Contra Costa Times.

Programming note: This afternoon, as noted in this earlier post, I’ll be a guest speaker at an appellate advocacy class at Widener University School of Law in Harrisburg. Before the class, I plan to grab lunch with Law Professor Mike Dimino, whose currently a guest blogger at “PrawfsBlawg.”

Additional posts may not appear here until this evening. At 10 a.m. eastern time today, the Supreme Court of the United States will issue an Order List. Once the Court posts it online, you can access the Order List via this link (or, perhaps, directly by clicking here). I anticipate that “SCOTUSblog” will provide timely coverage.

As noted in the post immediately below, the Supreme Court today is also hearing oral argument in three cases. Once the same-day transcripts of those arguments appear online, you will be able to access them via this link.

Previewing today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments: The Justices have decided to spend a whopping three hours on the bench today hearing oral arguments instead of the usual two hours.

Here’s what I wrote in my recent law.com essay summarizing the cases being argued in the October oral argument session:

The Court has scheduled three hours of oral argument for Oct 10. The first case scheduled for argument that day is United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, which presents the question whether the omission of an element from a federal indictment can constitute harmless error. The 9th Circuit answered “no.” A dissent from the 9th Circuit’s denial of rehearing en banc in a different case presenting the same issue argued persuasively that the omission should be allowed to constitute harmless error at least when “the defendant has actual notice of the missing element in advance of trial, evidence of the missing element is introduced, the jury is properly instructed about the element, and the finder of fact finds the element beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The second case scheduled for oral argument on Oct. 10 is Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., and it too arises from the 9th Circuit. At issue in the case is whether a provider of pay phone services can sue a long distance carrier for alleged violations of the Federal Communications Commission’s regulations concerning compensation for coinless pay phone calls. The 9th Circuit answered that question in the affirmative.

The third and final case scheduled for oral argument on Oct. 10 is Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Sorrell. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the ruling of an intermediate state appellate court in Missouri. The question presented is whether, in a lawsuit brought by an injured railroad employee under the Federal Employers Liability Act, the causation standard for employee contributory negligence differs from the causation standard for railroad negligence.

You can access the rest of my October oral argument preview essay at this link.

“Glimmers of greater openness at secretive Court”: Tony Mauro has this news analysis online at the First Amendment Center.

Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor to sit by designation with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit next Wednesday and Friday: You can access next week’s Ninth Circuit oral argument calendar at this link.

Of course, tomorrow morning Justice O’Connor will be sitting by designation with the Second Circuit, as I previously noted here.

Because the Ninth Circuit rapidly posts online its oral argument audio files, we will be able to listen in next week on the festivities. Perhaps Justice O’Connor will advise her former colleagues on the U.S. Supreme Court that same-day oral argument releases are nothing to fear, although my concern is that the availability of same-day oral argument transcripts from the Supreme Court will cause same-day oral argument audio releases to occur less frequently than before.

When Justice O’Connor joins the Ninth Circuit to hear oral arguments next week, she will be at the Ninth Circuit’s headquarters in San Francisco. It would be even more cool if, at some later point, she joined the Ninth Circuit to hear oral arguments in Phoenix at the Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse.

“What it means to be a liberal”: Law Professor Geoffrey R. Stone has this op-ed today in The Chicago Tribune.

“Class-Action Suit Seeks Release of Detainees; ACLU says U.S. agency is ignoring a Supreme Court ruling against holding immigrants awaiting deportation for more than six months”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

“More Calls for Death Penalty in Child Rapes; Measures in several states are meant to deter, but critics see execution making victims less likely to tell — and more likely to be killed”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, South Dakota is reporting: Today’s newspaper contains articles headlined “Forum debates lawsuits in judicial amendment” and “Ruling in tribe’s favor stands; Lower Brule’s land near I-90 now can be taken into trust.”

“As Religious Programs Expand, Disputes Rise Over Tax Breaks”: This lengthy article appears today in The New York Times.

“The Upcoming Supreme Court Tobacco Case That Will Test Punitive Damages Rules”: Anthony J. Sebok has this essay online at FindLaw.