“Gay Marriage Losing Punch as Ballot Issue”: This article will appear Saturday in The New York Times.

“The fact remains that this case presents a straightforward and unremarkable legal question: Did Robert Jordan state a Title VII claim against his employer for retaliation against him for complaining about a coworker’s single isolated racist remark made not to Jordan himself, but to a television set?” By a vote of 5-5, today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit entered an order denying rehearing en banc in the case of Jordan v. Alternative Resources Corp. The quote that leads off this post comes from the opinion of Circuit Judge Paul V. Niemeyer concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc.

The original three-judge panel previously issued two opinions in the case. The first opinion issued on May 12, 2006, and my coverage of that ruling appeared here. On August 14, 2006, following the grant of panel rehearing, the panel issued a new set of opinions, and my coverage of the opinions issued on panel rehearing can be accessed here.

“Northwest doesn’t need its own federal court circuit”: U.S. District Judges Robert S. Lasnik and Robert H. Whaley have this op-ed today in The Seattle Times.

Today in The Arizona Republic, columnist Richard Ruelas has an op-ed entitled “Splitting court may leave Latino judges out of mix.”

And two weeks ago tomorrow, The San Diego Union-Tribune published an editorial entitled “Politics and justice: Plan to split court again tainted by politics.”

“Although precedent forecloses Marion Hungerford’s Eighth Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), under which she received almost all of her 159-year term of imprisonment, it cannot be left unsaid how irrational, inhumane, and absurd the sentence in this case is, and moreover, how this particular sentence is a predictable by-product of the cruel and unjust mandatory minimum sentencing scheme adopted by Congress.” So begins an opinion concurring in the judgment that Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt issued today.

“A raspberry for the court?” Columnist Linda P. Campbell had this op-ed yesterday in The Fort Worth Star-Telegram. The essay examines the LaRoyce Smith death penalty case, which the U.S. Supreme Court recently granted cert. to review for a second time.

“Which Law Prof Blogs Have the Juice?” This post appears today at “TaxProf Blog,” which pledges to continue to report this information on a periodic basis so long as “TaxProf Blog” remains among the top five juiciest law professor blogs.

A motion for relief from a judgment or order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b) cannot properly be directed toward the decisions of a federal district court that is exercising appellate review over a bankruptcy court’s ruling: A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued this opinion today.

“Legal Legacy”: In the October 30, 2006 issue of The Nation, Law Professor Herman Schwartz will have this review of four recent books about the U.S. Supreme Court.

The review begins, “This fall, the Supreme Court enters a new era. No more will William Rehnquist stare coldly down at lawyers from the center chair. Instead, John Roberts will amiably but firmly interrogate them. And no more will Sandra Day O’Connor, sitting next to the Chief Justice, crisply ask her probing questions. Instead, Samuel Alito will politely address his from the far right end of the bench.”

“Taking sides can be risky business; Stores might turn off potential customers”: The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, South Dakota today contains an article that begins, “Jim Fischer cares enough about the state’s ban on nearly all abortions to stake the livelihood of his business on it.”

“Area law firms reach for a star; After the Enron courtroom victory, the U.S. lead prosecutor, Sean Berkowitz, finds himself again spotlighted–this time by recruiters”: This article appears today in The Chicago Tribune.

“Animal rights group loses lawsuit appeal; Free speech doesn’t apply to illegal conduct, court says”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

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

In the current issue of The Harvard Law Record: The publication contains articles headlined “Faculty Unanimously Overhauls First-Year Curriculum“; “Questions and Answers About the New 1L Curriculum“; “Kelo Attorney Fights for Life, Liberty, and Property“; and “Mock Funeral Protests ‘Death of the Constitution.’”

“Md. court rules against cuts in health care benefits; Decision favors legal immigrants battling for state insurance money”: The Baltimore Sun today contains an article that begins, “Maryland’s highest court sided with the families of 13 legal immigrant children yesterday in a long-running battle over their right to state health insurance that Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. eliminated more than a year ago.”

And The Washington Post reports today that “Ruling Faults Cuts in Immigrant Health Benefits; Injunction Upheld in Suit Over State Program for Children, Pregnant Women.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that State’s highest court, at this link.

“The Abstinence Shtick, Minus Jesus; Assembly Attended by 1,000 Students Watched Warily by ACLU”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“Charge of Treason Difficult to Prove, Legal Experts Say; Al-Qaeda Videos Led to Indictment”: The Washington Post contains this article today.

“Red Cross Interviews 14 Qaeda Terrorism Suspects at Guantanamo”: Neil A. Lewis has this article today in The New York Times.

The Washington Post reports today that “Red Cross Meets With 14 Moved to Guantanamo Bay.”

And in The Miami Herald, Carol Rosenberg reports that “Red Cross met key detainees; The Red Cross met with Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, registering them as U.S.-held captives after about four years at secret CIA sites.”

“Same-sex marriage back before voters, but mood different; Support for constitutional bans weaker than in 2004; activists seek reversals”: This article appears today in USA Today.

“Web page may jeopardize cases”: The Wichita Falls (Tex.) Times Record News today contains an article that begins, “Pending criminal cases might be jeopardized after city officials and the Wichita Falls Police Department learned of a graphic MySpace.com Web page operated by Officer Jeremiah Love. They placed him on suspension Tuesday.”

The newspaper also contains a related article headlined “Bachman: Officer’s posts show ‘lack of good moral character.’”

And The Associated Press reports that “Officer Suspended Over Graphic Web Site.”

“The California Court of Appeal’s Same-Sex Marriage Decision: Not the Last Word on the Matter, But Still Revealing In Many Ways.” Vikram David Amar has this essay online at FindLaw.