“Justices Ponder TV’s ‘Fleeting Expletives'”: Adam Liptak will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.

“Shit Doesn’t Happen: The Supreme Court’s 100 percent dirt-free exploration of potty words.” Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

A look at the current and future federal appellate court vacancies that President-elect Obama will now be able to fill: A list of the current vacancies can be accessed here, while a list of the anticipated future vacancies can be accessed here.

“Former L.A. District Attorney Goes to High Court to Protect Immunity for Supervisors”: Lawrence Hurley of The Daily Journal of California had this front page article yesterday previewing tomorrow’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, No. 07-854.

“Denied US asylum, an Eritrean prison guard appeals to high court; He says he was forced to stand guard as others were tortured and killed”: Warren Richey will have this article Wednesday in The Christian Science Monitor.

“Supreme Court Hears FCC Profanity Case”: Jerry Markon of The Washington Post has this news update.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “U.S. Supreme Court hears case on broadcast indecency; The justices discuss — without uttering — the sorts of words at issue in a challenge to the Federal Communications Commission’s crackdown on broadcast expletives.”

And Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers reports that “Supreme Court debates ‘F-word’ without using it.”

“Top court considers television dirty words case”: James Vicini of Reuters provides this report.

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Profanity Divides Justices in U.S. Broadcasting Case.”

“Dirty Words Hit Supreme Court”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Dahlia Lithwick appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Day to Day.”

Who says you can’t argue “fleeting expletives” appeal without uttering any fleeting expletives? Mark Sherman of The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Court wrestles with TV profanity case” that begins, “A divided Supreme Court spent an hour on Tuesday talking about dirty words on television without once using any.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Prudence prevailed, but the news stops there.”

Apparently Carter G. Phillips‘s pretense for delivering a profanity-laden oral argument when this very same appeal was argued before the Second Circuit was simply a load of cr*p.

Update: You can access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in the “fleeting expletives” case by clicking here.

Federal Circuit declares unconstitutional federal law setting goal that five percent of federal defense contracting dollars be awarded to small business concerns owned and controlled by “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals”: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit at this link.

The final paragraph of today’s opinion begins, “For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Section 1207, on its face, as reenacted in 2006, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment right to due process. Because the statute authorizes DOD to afford preferential treatment on the basis of race, we must apply strict scrutiny. And because Congress did not have a ‘strong basis in evidence’ upon which to conclude that DOD was a passive participant in pervasive, nationwide racial discrimination–at least not on the evidence produced by DOD and relied on by the district court in this case–the statute fails strict scrutiny.”

D.C. Circuit affirms dismissal of First Amendment challenge to Treasury regulations that tightened restrictions on Cuba-based study programs: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.

The two concurring opinions that accompany the ruling address whether a challenge based on a so-called right of “academic freedom” might have produced a different result.

“Tax cases could bring Mass. $1b; Courts poised to rule on where corporations pay”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.

According to the article, the cases “are being closely watched around the country, as other states seek to curb strategies that companies use to lower tax bills. Some of the biggest names in corporate America are fighting Massachusetts on this front: Microsoft Corp., Comcast Corp., and Home Depot Inc., among other firms.”

In news from Harvard Law: The Harvard Crimson reports today that “Tribe Recalls Obama At HLS.”

And the current issue of The Harvard Law Record contains an article headlined “Justice O’Connor: affirmative action should continue.”

“Quick ruling sought on claim; Erie Insurance lawyer testifies in Joyce case”: The Erie (Pa.) Times-News today contains an article that begins, “Erie Insurance Group fast-tracked then-Superior Court Judge Michael T. Joyce’s underinsured motorist claim in 2002 so that the company would not lose the benefit of his rulings on one of the state’s highest courts.”

“The Court and ‘Fleeting Expletives'”: The New York Times contains this editorial today.

And The Washington Post today contains an editorial entitled “You Can’t Say That on Television: The FCC’s edict on expletives reaches the Supreme Court.”

“Supreme Court will rule on rights to DNA testing; The justices will decide whether the constitution empowers inmates to obtain testing of old evidence that might free them; The case is from Alaska, one of six states that do not give that right”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Bin Laden cohort defiant after getting life sentence; A military jury convicted Osama bin Laden’s media secretary of three war crimes charges then condemned the terrorist to serve life in prison; he responded with defiance”: Carol Rosenberg has this article today in The Miami Herald.

The New York Times reports today that “Detainee Convicted on Terrorism Charges.”

And The Washington Post reports that “Guantanamo Jury Sentences Bin Laden Aide to Life Term.”

“Justices Weigh Effect of F.D.A. Approval of Drug Labels on Suits in State Courts”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

Today in The Washington Post, Jerry Markon reports that “High Court Case Looms Large for Drugmakers.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court weighs lawsuits against drug makers; In Wyeth vs. Levine, the justices appear closely split on whether to uphold the Bush administration’s policy that shields companies if the FDA has approved warning labels.”

In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “Justices Stake Out Middle Ground in Wyeth Case.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Legal Side Effects: Can companies be sued even if they follow FDA instructions?”

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic and Julie Appleby report that “Drugmakers’ lawsuit immunity tested; Court reviews strength of FDA label in amputee case.”

And Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers reports that “Businesses have much at stake in drug suit’s outcome.”

“Singapore says WSJ wages two-decade judicial attack”: Reuters provides a report that begins, “Singapore’s attorney general accused the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday of waging a two-decade campaign to besmirch the Singapore judiciary, at the start of a contempt of court case brought against the newspaper.”

“High Court To Revisit Issue Of Vulgar Speech On Air”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“Indian land case goes before Supreme Court”: The Providence (R.I.) Journal today contains an article that begins, “The Narragansett Indians are entitled to a special trust status that would free 31 acres of tribal land from Rhode Island laws and taxes, a federal lawyer told the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, but several justices greeted the argument with skeptical questioning.”

Caution — the f-word and/or the s-word may appear here at “How Appealing” before the day’s end: And I’m not just talking about Chase Utley.

As Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports, “Supreme Court takes up TV profanity case.”