“Lincoln and Habeas: Of Merryman, Milligan, and McCardle.” Law professor John Yoo has posted this essay online at SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“).

“The vote was about protecting state’s voters”: In Sunday’s edition of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Patience Drake Roggensack, a Justice serving on the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, will have a very interesting op-ed that begins, “Recently, the Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted a rule that states that a justice is not disqualified from a proceeding solely because his or her campaign received a lawful contribution, or because a group over which the justice has no control ran a campaign advertisement. Some articles in the media have implied that past campaign contributions or independent advertisements caused the justices to vote in favor of that rule. Those articles have not presented the full story of the concerns that the court’s rule addressed. Accordingly, they are misleading and deserve a response.”

In her op-ed, Justice Roggensack explains that “I voted for the rule because of my concern that the citizens who elected justices were in danger of having their votes for judicial candidates cancelled, solely due to another person’s lawful contribution or due to an independent advertisement over which the justice had no control. Let me explain — if a person made a lawful campaign contribution and that caused the justice to be disqualified from deciding legal issues presented to the court, all of the other voters who chose that justice because they believed he or she was fair, independent and knowledgeable about the law would have their votes cancelled because of the justice’s disqualification.”

“Police interrogation: Do you know your lawyer can be present? The US Supreme Court is considering a Florida case in which the defendant — and Florida courts — said he hadn’t been adequately informed that his lawyer could be present.” Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

“Can Congress create agencies insulated from White House control? The US Supreme Court is considering whether an oversight board created by Congress intrudes on executive branch authority — the latest battleground in the dispute over separation of powers.” Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

And Dow Jones Newswires report that “Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Accounting Board.”

“Obama administration seeks to kill Gitmo lawsuit”: Pete Yost of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A 2008 Supreme Court ruling giving Guantanamo Bay prisoners the right to challenge their indefinite detention does not apply in the case of two detainees who committed suicide, the Obama administration says in newly filed court papers.”

Available online from law.com: An article reports that “2nd Circuit Revives Starbucks’ Mark Dispute With ‘Charbucks.’” My earlier coverage of the Second Circuit’s ruling appears at this link.

And in other news, “N.J. Supreme Court Weighs Travelers’ Right of Privacy in Baggage They Don’t Claim.”

“10 more firefighters receive promotions”: Today’s edition of The New Haven Register contains an article that begins, “It had been a decade since the city, blocked by protracted and racially charged litigation, promoted any officers in the Fire Department. Now, the city has promoted 24 in the last 72 hours as it navigates through the post-Ricci legal landscape.”

“Limits to jury damage awards to be debated by Missouri Supreme Court”: This article will appear Sunday in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch.