“Burris asks Illinois Supreme Court to confirm his nomination”: CNN.com provides this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “Burris goes to court to push appointment through.”

“Chief Justice: Judges want equal treatment.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog” about Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.’s 2008 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary.

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “Annual Report on the Judiciary: Costs are Down, and Pay Needs to Go Up.”

Unlike in previous years, when the annual report was embargoed until midnight on January 1st, this year the report was only embargoed until 6 p.m. on December 31st.

“Today, our court promulgates an astonishing new rule of law for the nine Western States. Henceforth, a plaintiff who claims to feel offended by the mere thought of associating with people who hold different views has suffered a legally cognizable injury-in-fact.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today issued an order denying rehearing en banc in Barnes-Wallace v. San Diego.

Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain has issued an opinion dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc that begins:

Today, our court promulgates an astonishing new rule of law for the nine Western States. Henceforth, a plaintiff who claims to feel offended by the mere thought of associating with people who hold different views has suffered a legally cognizable injury-in-fact. No other circuit has embraced this remarkable innovation, which contradicts nearly three decades of the Supreme Court’s standing jurisprudence. In practical effect, the three-judge panel majority’s unprecedented theory creates a new legal landscape in which almost anyone who is almost offended by almost anything has standing to air his or her displeasure in court. I must respectfully, but vigorously, dissent from our failure to rehear this case en banc.

Including Judge O’Scannlain, a total of six judges joined in this dissent.

My first post about the Ninth Circuit’s original ruling on this appeal appeared on December 18, 2006.

“Louisiana to appeal 2 dads on birth certificate”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The state of Louisiana says it will appeal a federal court order to put the names of two adoptive fathers on their son’s birth certificate. State Health Secretary Alan Levine said Wednesday the state is being forced to grant more legal recognition to the couple than required under the U.S. Constitution.”

And in earlier coverage, The Times-Picayune of New Orleans last Saturday published an article headlined “Record must have both men’s names; Couple sues in state over adopted boy.”

U.S. District Judge Jay C. Zainey issued last week’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

“Court rules against man who taped nude girlfriend”: Today’s edition of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel contains an article that begins, “Someone who agrees to get naked in front of another person still retains an expectation that the nudity won’t be recorded, the state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday. In a split decision, the court upheld the felony conviction of a man who secretly videotaped his girlfriend while she was nude.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruling appears at this link.

“Does Senate have authority to block Blagojevich’s appointment of Roland Burris? Supreme Court has said in past that House and Senate cannot refuse to seat someone who meets qualifications.” Mike Dorning and David G. Savage have this article today in The Chicago Tribune.

“Judges rule three-strikes sentence unconstitutional; The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals says a 28-years-to-life penalty for a sex offender who failed to register at the proper time is cruel and unusual punishment”: Carol J. Williams has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Ninth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Atheists Sue to Get Prayer, God Out of Obama’s Swearing-In”: The Washington Post contains this article today.

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “Atheists Sue Chief Justice Over Inaugural Oath.”

“Judge Agrees With Bush in Ruling on 2 Detainees”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Judge rules against two detainees.”

“Pyrrhic Torture Trials”: Today in The Washington Post, columnist Ruth Marcus has an op-ed that begins, “Should Bush administration officials be put on trial for crimes such as authorizing torture?”

“State judges’ vacation reduced; Plan meant to save $685,000 lets them buy back time off”: The Baltimore Sun today contains an article that begins, “The Court of Appeals decided yesterday to reduce vacation days for judges and allow them to buy back leave time, a cost-saving plan that some judges grudgingly backed amid concerns that it would burden those in busier trial courts. The appellate court unanimously approved the measure, saying the judiciary wants to do its part to help fix Maryland’s budget crisis.”

“Fumo lawyer objects to blog trial coverage”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Daily News.

“Gonzales Defends Role in Antiterror Policies”: Today in The Wall Street Journal, Evan Perez has an article that begins, “Alberto Gonzales, who has kept a low profile since resigning as attorney general nearly 16 months ago, said he is writing a book to set the record straight about his controversial tenure as a senior official in the Bush administration.”

“On busy last day, Williams works on health benefits case”: The Providence (R.I.) Journal today contains an article that begins, “On his last day as the head of the state judiciary, Supreme Court Chief Justice Frank J. Williams yesterday spent two hours in mediation with lawyers for the City of Providence and the municipal unions over whether the self-insured city can go ahead with switching its health-benefits administrators tomorrow.”

“The Supreme Court’s Latest Decision on Federal Preemption of State Law: Why it Is Significant, and What it Hints About the Likely Outcome of the Upcoming Major Preemption Decision.” Anthony J. Sebok has this essay online at FindLaw.