“Lethal method okay in Florida; State Supreme Court allows the procedure despite a case before U.S. Supreme Court”: This article appears today in The St. Petersburg Times.

And The Tallahassee Democrat reports today that “Court clears way for executions; Florida justices OK new lethal-injection methods.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Florida at this link.

“Preview: The Second Amendment case.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

One of the issues touched on in Lyle’s post was the subject of the March 19, 2007 installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com, headlined “State of the Second Amendment: Does It Apply in the District of Columbia?”

Patent attorneys accused of writing sexually tinged poetry apparently still fall outside of the Federal Circuit‘s jurisdiction: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued this ruling today in an employment discrimination suit. The blog “Appellate Law & Practice” provides this summary of the decision.

The Associated Press is reporting: An article headlined “2 Key Dems Back Attorney General Pick” begins, “Sens. Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein say they will vote for Attorney General-nominee Michael Mukasey, which likely gives him enough support to pass the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

And Lara Jakes Jordan has an article headlined “Torture Nuances Stall Mukasey Nomination.”

“FCC Appeals Indecency Case to High Court”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Comparing its dilemma to a Greek myth, lawyers for the Federal Communications Commission have formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court’s rejection of the agency’s policy on broadcast profanity.”

My earlier coverage from yesterday appears at this link.

“The problem of defining ‘wages’ in this case presents a contrast between two possible concepts of faculty tenure at the University.” The majority on a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit today issued an opinion that begins, “The issue in this case is whether early retirement payments made by the University of Pittsburgh to its tenured faculty are taxable as ‘wages’ under the Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA)?”

The majority holds that the payments constituted wages and thus were taxable. Third Circuit Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica dissented in an opinion that concludes: “Accordingly, I would hold payments for the relinquishment of the property right in tenure at the University were not remuneration for employment and were not subject to FICA taxation.” In agreement with today’s dissenter, the trial judge had also held that the payments are not taxable.

“Brian Nichols case — Despite critics, Fuller toils on; Going from retirement to complex case: Superior Court judge took job nobody wanted.” Today’s edition of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution contains an article that begins, “Despite ongoing criticism and being called ‘a fool’ by a peer, the trial judge in the Brian Nichols death penalty case has shown no signs that he’s going to step aside. Nor is he cowering or maintaining a low profile.”

And The Associated Press is reporting that “Prosecutor sues judge over delays in Nichols’ trial.”

Who will want to be a state trial court judge in Virginia now that you can’t flip a coin to decide a case or order a litigant to drop her pants? The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Judge Booted for Flipping Coin to Decide” that begins, “A judge who ordered a woman to drop her pants and decided a custody dispute by flipping a coin was removed from the bench by the Virginia Supreme Court on Friday.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Virginia at this link.

“Leahy to Oppose Mukasey for AG”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Friday he won’t support Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey, further undercutting his chances for a quick confirmation, because he hasn’t taken a firm enough stand against torture.”

“Panel OKs Tinder for appeals post”: The Indianapolis Star today contains an article that begins, “The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday unanimously approved U.S. District Judge John D. Tinder’s nomination to the federal appeals court. The full Senate must still vote on the Indianapolis native. It’s not clear when that vote might come.”

Vote for best (or should I say “most popular”) law blog in The 2007 Weblog Awards: You can vote once every 24 hours. By clicking here, you’ll be taken directly to the page where you can vote for one of the ten law blog finalists. All the other categories in which voting is also underway can be viewed via this link.

“Undecided Schumer May Be Key to Mukasey’s Chances; Judiciary Chairman Endorsed Justice Nominee but Says He, Like Other Democrats, Is Concerned About Torture Question”: The Washington Post contains this article today. An editorial is entitled “Mr. Mukasey and Torture: The Senate should confirm the former and ban the latter.” And today’s installment of Dana Milbank’s “Washington Sketch” column is headlined “Logic Tortured.”

The New York Times today contains articles headlined “Bush, Defending Justice Nominee, Sees Unfairness” and “Taking All the Credit, and Then Counting the Cost.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Bush raises stakes on Mukasey; Democrats’ insistence on a torture declaration is unfair and could leave the Justice Department without a leader, the president says.”

USA Today contains an article headlined “Bush: Mukasey approval needed for U.S. security.”

The Washington Times reports that “It’s Mukasey or no one, Bush warns.”

And The New York Sun reports that “Bush Scolds Congress For Its Treatment of Mukasey.”

“Princeton at risk of losing donor’s gift; In light of dispute, universities may work to ensure donations are spent in accord with requests”: This article appears today in The Yale Daily News.

“Brutality, Disguised: The Supreme Court should end both lethal injection and capital punishment altogether.” The Harvard Crimson contains this editorial today.

“Va. abortion law argued in court; ‘Partial-birth’ procedure is focus of 4th Circuit hearing in Richmond”: This article appears today in The Richmond Times-Dispatch.

And today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Judges Appear Hesitant on Virginia ‘Partial Birth’ Abortion Ban; Supreme Court’s Ruling Allowing Restrictions on Procedure May Not Open Door to Implementation of State’s Statute.”

“Librarians Say Surveillance Bills Lack Adequate Oversight”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “A little-remarked feature of pending legislation on domestic surveillance has provoked alarm among university and public librarians who say it could allow federal intelligence-gathering on library patrons without sufficient court oversight.”

“$3.6 billion ruling rejected; State did not prove Exxon committed fraud, court rules”: This article appears today in The Birmingham News.

As I noted in this post from last night, the blog “Alabama Appellate Watch” has posted yesterday’s 125-page ruling of the Supreme Court of Alabama at this link.

“To Marine’s Father, Suit Is More Than Money”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “After a year and a half of anger, grief and legal maneuvering, the father of a marine killed in Iraq has said the success of his suit against a fundamentalist sect that picketed his son’s funeral means more than the jury’s $10.9 million damage award on Tuesday.”

The Baltimore Sun today contains articles headlined “Reversal likely in protest verdict; First Amendment applies, experts say” and “Survivors of soldiers thankful for verdict; Families find justice in damage award against Kan. church.” In addition, columnist Jean Marbella has an op-ed entitled “If church doesn’t pay, father still wins.”

And The Topeka Capital-Journal today contains articles headlined “Fallen Marine’s dad wants Phelps property” and “Phelps church vandalized; small firecrackers found.”

“Rules Lower Prison Terms in Sentences for Crack”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

And in The Los Angeles Times, Harlan Protass has an op-ed entitled “Revisit crack sentences: Congress nixed outrageous prison terms for crack offenders, but the decision should be applied retroactively.”

Available online from law.com: An article reports that “Circuits Wary of Plan for Policing Federal Bench.”

And in other news, “Pa. Court Applies Strict Time Bar in Legal Malpractice Case.” You can access the recent ruling of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania at this link.