Available online from law.com: An article reports that “Prisoners’ Right to Internet Materials Contested; Bans on inmate mail generated from the Net are triggering lawsuits.”

And the new installment of my “On Appeal” column is headlined “2006 Appellate Year in Review.”

For the “Southern Appeal” blog, “The curtain closes”: Details at this link.

“What Was Alberto R. Gonzales Thinking?: And what did Judge David Tatel write?” Jack Shafer has this Press Box essay online at Slate.

“Travelers Test Rules on Flying Without Identification”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on yesterday’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition.” The segment refers to a related cert. petition (which you can access via this link) pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Another reason for Carter G. Phillips to drop the f-bomb? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit today issued its ruling in Maine People’s Alliance v. Mallinckrodt, Inc.

The First Circuit’s opinion begins, “In the teeth of two decades of contrary precedent from four circuits, defendant-appellant Mallinckrodt, Inc. asks us to restrict the role of private citizens in the abatement of imminent and substantial threats to the environment and public health. In support of this entreaty, Mallinckrodt presents a gallimaufry of new, hitherto unconsidered arguments.”

And the opinion ends, “Despite an impressive array of arguments, skillfully presented by extraordinarily able counsel, Mallinckrodt has not persuaded us that the plaintiffs lack standing to sue, that its cramped interpretation of RCRA § 7002(a)(1)(B) is what Congress had in mind, or that the district court acted outside the realm of its discretion in fashioning a remedy for the threatened harm. Consequently, we uphold the district court’s rulings in all respects.”

“Charges Against Kan. Abortion Doc Dumped”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Kansas’ attorney general, a vocal abortion opponent, charged a well-known abortion provider with illegally performing late-term abortions, but a Sedgwick County judge on Friday threw out the charges after less than a day.”

Corporations don’t have sex lives, nor do they have a federal constitutional right to facilitate their customers’ rights to engage in consensual homosexual sex acts: A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today rejected due to lack of standing an appeal taken by a Phoenix-based gay men’s social club that was seeking to assert a constitutional challenge to a city ordinance prohibiting the operation of “live sex act” businesses. You can access today’s ruling at this link.

Ninth Circuit orders reduction in Exxon Valdez punitive damages from $4.5 billion to $2.5 billion: Now both sides can claim victory, as it’s not every day that a defense lawyer can save his client $2 billion, nor is it every day that a plaintiff’s lawyer can have even a $2.5 billion punitive damages verdict upheld on appeal. You can access today’s ruling by a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link. The dissenting judge would have affirmed the entire $4.5 billion punitive damages award at issue in today’s decision.

Update: In early news coverage, David Kravets of The Associated Press reports that “Court Cuts Valdez Judgment Against Exxon.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Damages Reduced by Almost Half.”

D.C. Circuit Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh issues recusal-related opinion: In a short opinion issued today, Judge Kavanaugh explains why he denied a motion to recuse from hearing a case involving the “Softwood Lumber” dispute between the United States and Canada.

Also today, a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel issued a decision on the merits of the case, and Judge Kavanaugh was the author of the court’s majority opinion.

“Indians lose state Supreme Court ruling; Justices narrowly back a political watchdog agency’s lawsuit against a Palm Springs-area tribe over campaign law violations despite their sovereign immunity”: Today in The Los Angeles Times, Maura Dolan has an article that begins, “A divided California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Indian tribes can be sued for violating the state’s campaign disclosure law even though tribes enjoy sovereign immunity under federal law. The 4-3 ruling is unprecedented and may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has consistently protected Indian immunity from lawsuits.”

Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article headlined “Ruling on campaign disclosure; Tribes can be sued for late gift reports.”

And Claire Cooper, legal affairs writer for The Sacramento Bee, has an article headlined “Tribal immunity rejected in political-funding case.”

You can access yesterday’s 4-3 ruling of the Supreme Court of California at this link.

“Ruling weakens law’s limits on corporate political ads”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

The New York Times reports today that “Court Overturns Limits on Political Ads, Part of the Campaign Finance Law.”

The Washington Post reports that “Issue Advocacy Ads May Run During an Election, Three-Judge Court Rules.”

The Washington Times reports that “Issue ads allowed in election run-up.”

And at his “Election Law” blog, Law Professor Rick Hasen has a post titled “Court Adopts ‘See No Evil’ Approach in Campaign Finance Case; Major Changes Could Be on the Horizon.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling by a three-judge U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia at this link.

“Married names for grooms: Husbands have too hard a time adopting their wives’ last names.” The Los Angeles Times contains this editorial today.

“Gays get marriage without the name; Corzine signs bill creating civil unions”: This article appears today in The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger. In addition, the newspaper contains an editorial entitled “One step forward for gays.”

And The Philadelphia Inquirer reports today that “N.J. takes step with civil unions; Gov. Corzine made them official for gay couples; Advocates predicted state marriage rights would not be far behind.”

“Media-Sourcing Debate on Deck at Capitol; Congress Is Likely to Revisit Calls for Federal Shield Law As Baseball Case Culminates”: Jess Bravin and Sarah Ellison have this article (free access) today in The Wall Street Journal.

“The Israeli Supreme Court Rules on ‘Targeted Killings'”: Joanne Mariner has this essay online today at FindLaw.

My earlier coverage appears here and here.