“Copyright Troll Righthaven Teetering on the Brink”: David Kravets has this post at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog.

“Supreme Court considers role of eyewitness testimony; A defense lawyer asks the justices to establish a stronger legal rule to screen out potentially unreliable testimony before trial, but the high court seems reluctant”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

Joan Biskupic of USA Today has a news update headlined “Supreme Court examines reliability of eyewitness testimony.”

And online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a Supreme Court dispatch entitled “See No Evil: Eyewitness testimony may be unreliable, but the Supreme Court doesn’t want to be the one to say so.”

“Obama nominates Arizona Supreme Court Justice Hurwitz for 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals”: The Associated Press has this report.

The White House today issued a news release headlined “President Obama Nominates Justice Andrew David Hurwitz to Serve on the United States Court of Appeals.”

And the Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a news release headlined “Arizona Justice Andrew D. Hurwitz Nominated to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.”

You can access the nominee’s online biography at this link.

“Top court hears eyewitness identification case”: James Vicini of Reuters has this report.

Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Justices examine eyewitness identification.”

And Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “No need for new eye witness rule, Supreme Court justices suggest at hearing; The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether judges need to intervene to prevent testimony from unreliable witnesses at criminal trials; The justices indicated that existing safeguards in the justice system are adequate.”

Update: Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post reports that “Supreme Court Looks At Unreliable Eyewitness IDs And Appears To Blink.”

“Supreme Court Looks Again at Methods of D.A.’s Office in Louisiana”: Campbell Robertson and Adam Liptak will have this article Thursday in The New York Times.

“Appeals court urged to make workings more transparent”: Bill Rankin of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a news update that begins, “The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals often hears cases of interest and consequence, yet it is the only federal appeals court in the nation that does not publish its hearing calendar online.”

“Court takes up case on eyewitness identification”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Eyewitnesses discredited? Hardly.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Perry v. New Hampshire, No. 10-8974.

“Clarence Thomas: Court needs to ‘clean up our mess.'” David L. Hudson Jr. has this essay online at the First Amendment Center.

“Appeals court to hear arguments in Bald Knob Cross suit today”: This article appears today in The Southeast Missourian of Cape Girardeau.

According to today’s oral argument list available via the Seventh Circuit’s web site, the three-judge panel assigned to hear and decide the case consists of Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook and Circuit Judges Richard A. Posner and Diane P. Wood.

An early report on this morning’s oral argument from The Associated Press begins, “Judges on a Chicago federal appeals court say even if a giant cross in southern Illinois is a religious symbol, that doesn’t mean the state legislature was wrong to fund part of it.”

Update: You can access the audio of today’s Seventh Circuit oral argument via this link (5.71MB mp3 audio file).

“Appeals panel sides with CBS over Super Bowl fine”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld its finding that the Federal Communications Commissions acted improperly in fining CBS over the fleeting exposure of Janet Jackson’s breast during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.”

Bloomberg News reports that “CBS Ruling on Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl Exposure Upheld by Appeals Court.”

And Reuters reports that “CBS wins Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction ruling.”

You can access today’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at this link.

“Lawsuit raises the Ricci spectre”: Today’s edition of The Yale Daily News contains an article that begins, “Only a few months after the finalization of a settlement to a New Haven firefighter-filed lawsuit that reached the Supreme Court, the same department is causing another legal headache for the city.”

“Woman gets 10 years in courthouse bombing”: Today in The San Diego Union-Tribune, Greg Moran has an article that begins, “The woman who admitted setting off a powerful pipe bomb in front of the federal courthouse in downtown San Diego more than three years ago was sentenced to 10 years in prison.”

“Should eye witnesses have to pass a test? Supreme Court to decide; The Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday on whether testimony from unreliable witnesses should be barred from criminal trials, or whether the trial process itself makes clear if testimony is reliable.” Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

“Ramos defends anti-animal cruelty law”: The Press-Enterprise of Riverside, California today contains an article that begins, “San Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramos came out Tuesday in defense of a California law at the center of an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case, describing the challenge to the statute banning the slaughter of certain animals as a potential threat to state authority.”

“Durham to retire from Oregon Supreme Court; It will be the first time in almost 25 years that two seats will be decided by election”: This article appears today in The Statesman Journal of Salem, Oregon.

“Health law ruling could be political earthquake”: Politico.com has this report.

“Alabama AG expects U.S. Supreme Court showdown over immigration law”: The Birmingham News contains this article today.

“Castille sues lawyer, firm over Family Court deal”: Today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer contains an article that begins, “Pennsylvania’s chief justice sued his once-trusted attorney and a prominent Philadelphia law firm Tuesday, saying he was misled into paying millions in unnecessary fees for the Family Court building project.”