“Supreme Court Hears Recruitment Case”: This segment (transcript with link to audio) featuring Jan Crawford Greenburg appeared on this evening’s broadcast of the PBS program “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.”

“Striking Down the Solomon Amendment on Military Recruiting: A Hollow Victory at the Expense of Our Military.” You can access at this link my op-ed published in January 2005 in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

“Law Schools Against Free Speech: The Supreme Court considers military recruitment on campus.” Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate. Her essay concludes, “You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth. The law schools have no case.”

“High Court Hears Case on Military Recruiting on Campus”: Charles Lane will have this article Wednesday in The Washington Post.

The Associated Press is reporting: In news from Pennsylvania, “Lawyer Jailed Since 1995 on Contempt Charge” (thanks in part to Judge Alito, no less!) and “Second Judge Challenges Pay-Raise Repeal.”

Meanwhile, in news from Tampa, Florida, “Ex-Professor Cleared on Some Terror Charges.”

But if the unarmed suspect had cancer, then the police wouldn’t have violated the Fourth Amendment by shooting him dead: A reader emails:

In today’s First Circuit opinion of Whitfield v. Melendez-Rivera, the First Circuit quotes the seminal Supreme Court excessive force case, Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), for the proposition that “A police officer may not seize an unarmed, noncancerous suspect by shooting him dead.” See slip op. at 15.

Of course, it’s supposed to read “nondangerous”

The typo appears here. And the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tennessee v. Garner is here.

“Administration objects to story describing Alito as conservative”: Ron Hutcheson of Knight Ridder Newspapers provides this report.

“Justices Skeptical of Free Speech Argument in Solomon Case; Statement by FAIR lawyer may have dealt blow to gay rights activists”: Daniel J. Hemel has this news update online at The Harvard Crimson.

“Review of cases shows Alito to be staunch conservative”: Stephen Henderson of Knight Ridder Newspapers appeared on yesterday’s broadcast of C-SPAN‘s “Washington Journal” to discuss his recent article, co-written with Howard Mintz, headlined “Review of cases shows Alito to be staunch conservative.” You can access the video by clicking here (RealPlayer required).

This morning’s broadcast of “Washington Journal” offered a counterpoint in a segment (RealPlayer required) entitled “Rachel Brand, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office for Legal Policy.”

“Man Held In Court Bomb Threats; Willimantic Resident Faces Terrorism Charges”: The Hartford Courant today contains an article that begins, “A Willimantic man who police said emptied judicial buildings across the state Friday by calling in a series of bomb threats from a pay phone to avoid a court appearance was arrested on terrorism charges Monday.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Conn. Man Wanted to Avoid Court Appearance.”

“Court Debates Allowing Domino’s Suit”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “In a case that could affect lawsuits alleging discrimination in contracting, a Nevada businessman urged the Supreme Court Tuesday to let him sue Domino’s Pizza for racial discrimination even though the chain did not have a contract with him individually.”

“The Snow Man: This Christmas, conservatives try to escape the Ghost of Alito’s Past.” Bruce Reed has this post at Slate’s “The Has-Been.”

“Military Gets U.S. High Court Support on Recruiting”: Bloomberg News provides this report.

“Supreme Court Appears Amenable to Military Recruiting at Colleges”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.

“Supreme Court Leans Towards Upholding Solomon Amendment”: law.com’s Tony Mauro provides this news update.

“Slate’s Jurisprudence: Challenging ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.'” This segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Dahlia Lithwick appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Day to Day.”

“This case displays a dark side of our nation’s policy in favor of arbitration.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today confronted a case in which an employer required its employees to agree to arbitrate employment-related claims, then refused to arbitrate claims filed by a dismissed employee, and then demanded arbitration after the employee sued the employer in court. In today’s ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that “when an employer enters into an arbitration agreement with its employees, it must itself participate in properly initiated arbitration proceedings or forego its right to compel arbitration.”

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “FTC Can’t Regulate Lawyers, Court Rules“; “Moussaoui Prosecutors Ask to Limit Testimony“; and “Clemency for Death Row Inmates Rare.”

“Gay rights and military recruiting clash in court; Supreme Court hears arguments over recruiters’ access to law schools”: Tom Curry, national affairs writer for MSNBC, provides this report.

“Supreme Court Oral Argument: Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights.” C-SPAN has made this morning’s oral argument available online, on demand at this link (RealPlayer required).

The latest update from Gina Holland of The Associated Press is headlined “Justices Hear Military Recruiting Case,” and it begins, “The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to uphold a law that says colleges cannot turn away military recruiters in protest of the Pentagon’s policy on gays if the universities also want to receive federal money.”

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Most Supreme Court justices back campus recruiting.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Solomon Amendment likely to survive.”

“Court Hears Case of Recruiters on Campuses”: Gina Holland of The Associated Press provides this updated report.

C-SPAN in just a moment will begin its rebroadcast of this morning’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Rumsfeld v. FAIR, the Solomon Amendment case: You can view in either RealPlayer or Windows Media formats.

“Endangering Roe: There are many — and subtle — clues to an Alito court in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood.” Scott Lemieux has this essay online at The American Prospect.

“Non-Recusal Non-Issue”: Law Professor Jonathan H. Adler has this post at National Review Online’s “Bench Memos” blog.

Unanimous two-judge* D.C. Circuit panel affirms declaratory judgment holding that Federal Trade Commission exceeded the FTC’s statutory authority in deciding that attorneys engaged in the practice of law are covered by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act: At issue in the case was whether Congress in the privacy provisions of the Act enabled the FTC to regulate the practice of law. You can access today’s ruling at this link (beware of footnote 3).

*Then-Circuit Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. was originally a member of the panel but recused after being nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court because plaintiff-appellee American Bar Association evaluates the qualifications of Supreme Court nominees.

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court opinion in an argued case: Today’s ruling comes in the case of Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, No. 04-631 (oral argument transcript here; background on the case here).

Online at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court upholds tax on Indian sales.”

“Judge files suit to restore pay hikes; Albert W. Sheppard of Philadelphia argued that last month’s repeal by the legislature was ‘arbitrary and capricious'”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

“High Court to Weigh Military Recruitment at Universities”: This segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition.”

Yesterday’s broadcast of the public radio program “Here & Now” included a segment entitled “Military Recruitment Case Reaches Supreme Court” (RealPlayer required).

The Sacramento Bee today contains an article headlined “Law schools vs. military at Supreme Court today; Some campuses had banned recruiters over anti-gay policy of armed services.”

And Gina Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Court to Weigh Recruiters on Campuses.”

Shortly after 11 a.m. eastern time this morning, C-SPAN will broadcast the audio of this morning’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in this case.

“Dover ruling could be its own genesis; Legal observers say the judge can take one of three paths in the intelligent design case”: This article appears today in The Chicago Tribune.

“Court to Rule on What Constitutes Employer Retaliation”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.

And yesterday in The Washington Post, Charles Lane’s “Full Court Press” column was headlined “Suing for a Slice of Domino’s.”

“High court clears way for Hells Angels suit; Biker gang to sue over property destruction, dogs’ killings”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

“Lockyer Asks Justices to Rein In 9th Circuit Court”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this article today.

“Alito’s policy on recusals is questioned; As judge, he was ‘present’ in case he helped prosecute”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.

The Washington Times reports that “Conservatives air ads praising Alito.”

The Rocky Mountain News reports that “Focus on the Family takes shot at Salazar; Newspaper ads today center on nomination of Alito to high court.”

And The Chicago Sun-Times reports that “Gov’s not wild about Alito.”

In commentary, columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. has an op-ed entitled “Dodging Debate On Alito” in The Washington Post.

In The Boston Globe, columnist Peter S. Canellos has an op-ed entitled “For foes of Roe v. Wade, Alito’s fuzziness comforts.”

And in The Washington Times, Bruce Fein has an op-ed entitled “Winning the battle, losing the war?”

“Court weighs whether funds can be cut for schools that limit military recruiting; Schools protest ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell'”: Joan Biskupic has this article today in USA Today.

The New York Sun reports today that “Military Recruitment Case Heads to High Court.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Military Recruiting, Academic Freedom Clash at U.S. High Court.”

In The Harvard Crimson today, Daniel J. Hemel reports that “Court To Hear Solomon Appeal; Case before high court today poses quandary.”

The Vanderbilt Hustler reports that “Supreme Court to decide fate of military recruiting.”

And The Daily Tar Heel reports that “Military practice at heart of case; Gay students fight recruiting.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Stop the squabble: Though the Supreme Court should recognize the government’s right to withhold funding, the federal government should be bigger than that.”

In other commentary, The Washington Post contains an editorial entitled “UnFAIR but Not Illegal.”

In The Austin American-Statesman, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has an op-ed entitled “Military recruiters have right to be on campus.”

And in The Minnesota Daily, Ian Maitland has an op-ed entitled “Freedom and the Solomon Amendment: The law schools are learning the hard way of the downside of getting what they wished for; Maybe they’ll think twice about giving away powers.”