“Antiabortion movement hoping for electoral victory in Miss.” Saturday’s edition of The Washington Post will contain this article.

And Saturday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times will contain an article headlined “Mississippi attempts to define the start of personhood; A state initiative would ban all abortions; But opponents of the ballot measure say it would also ban many birth control pills and hamper popular infertility treatments, claims proponents are calling ‘scare tactics.’”

“Life Sentence for Possession of Child Pornography Spurs Debate Over Severity”: This article will appear Saturday in The New York Times.

“Showdown over Los Angeles courthouse in Congress”: Reuters has this report.

Now tell us how you really feel! On occasion, this blog will draw attention to particularly forceful or passionate dissenting opinions. Fifth Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith issued one such dissent, from a denial of rehearing en banc, on Wednesday of this week. The order denying rehearing en banc and Judge Smith’s dissent therefrom were posted to the Fifth Circuit’s web site yesterday.

Judge Smith’s dissenting opinion begins, “This case was lawyered poorly on both sides, but never mind: In an exercise of raw advocacy for one party over another, this panel has come to the rescue of Morgan Swindle, who was properly kicked out of school after smoking dope, at the expense of Superintendent Randy Pope, who did nothing wrong but is now personally on the line for money damages.”

And the dissenting opinion concludes some 15 pages later, “The panel opinion is a shameless exercise in appellate advocacy on behalf of an undeserving party at the expense of a well-intentioned school official who has done no wrong. I respectfully dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc.”

As for those who would accuse the Fifth Circuit of sometimes taking too long to decide a case, Judge Smith unquestionably agrees, writing in footnote two of his dissent: “The panel, without explanation, took more than two years after oral argument to issue its opinion. That is a disservice to the litigants and to the fair administration of justice.”

According to the order denying rehearing en banc, a total of five judges voted in favor of full court review, which is particularly noteworthy given that the losing side’s attorneys, to again quote Judge Smith’s dissent, “made the error of requesting only panel rehearing, making it less likely that the matter would attract the full attention of the en banc court.”

You can access the original three-judge panel’s ruling at this link.

“Police GPS tracking case to be heard by Supreme Court”: James Vicini of Reuters has this report.

“Supreme Court Justice opens up to law school on the stability of statutes”: The GW Hatchet has a blog post that begins, “Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia highlighted the importance of impartiality and consistency in judicial decision-making during the kickoff to a two-day GW Law School symposium at the Jack Morton Auditorium Thursday.”

“The standoff lasted 4 minutes, but the questions go on and on: The police shooting of Lukus Glenn, 18, has both loved ones and authorities trying to find answers.” This article appeared in the September 24, 2006 issue of The Oregonian.

Today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a federal district court’s entry of summary judgment against the mother’s lawsuit alleging a state law wrongful death claim and a federal civil rights claim for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. You can access today’s ruling at this link.

The Oregonian has collected some of its earlier coverage of the shooting and the events leading up to the lawsuit at this link.

“Court Casts Doubt on Race-Conscious Student Assignment Plan”: At the “School Law” blog of Education Week, Mark Walsh has this post on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Preview: Justices to debate passports and presidential power.” Bill Mears of CNN.com has this report.

Update: And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument preview: No Mideast peace over this.”

“Verdict on courthouse name is near; Rep. Higgins, judges back high court’s Robert Jackson for honor over two others”: The Buffalo News contains this article today.

“Federal courthouse plan in L.A. meets opposition; A Republican congressman from California’s Central Valley has introduced a bill to sell the vacant site for $25 million; State Democrats are trying to save the long-awaited project”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“State executions to remain on hold another year”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, Carol J. Williams reports that “California lethal injections on hold for another year; Lawyers for the state and for death row prisoners agree to report to a judge on new lethal injection procedures by Sept. 15, 2012.”

And Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “No California executions in 2012 as legal battle over lethal injection continues.”