“N.D. Restriction on Judicial Speech Denied”: The Associated Press provides this report. And The Forum of Fargo, North Dakota reports today that “Judge strikes down judicial canon.”

You can access Monday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota at this link.

“Federalism Has a Right to Life, Too”: Law Professor Charles Fried has this op-ed today in The New York Times.

And at National Review Online, Andrew C. McCarthy has an essay entitled “Another Loss, But a Glimmer of Hope; A divided Eleventh Circuit panel declines to reinsert the feeding tube.”

“EFF appeals Apple fan site ruling”: c|net News.Com has the latest in the Apple Computer vs. bloggers litigation.

Mistrial declared because federal court jury in Connecticut was too afraid to do its job: The Connecticut Post today contains an article headlined “Mistrial declared as jury asks out; 8-member panel dismissed after fearing for safety” that begins, “Members of a federal jury, fearing for their own safety, begged out of hearing any more evidence in a civil suit involving the bloody assault of a suspected prison snitch by a reputed member of the Terminators gang.”

Which of the two judges in the majority wrote the Eleventh Circuit’s per curiam opinion rejecting the appeal filed by Terri Schiavo’s parents? Because the opinion is “per curiam” (Latin for “by the Court”), the answer to this question may never be definitively known. Nevertheless, those of us who are familiar with the writing styles of the two judges in the majority have little difficulty recognizing which of those two judges is responsible for the vast bulk of that opinion. I previously linked here to the biographical information of the three judges on the panel.

“Prosecutors Want Moussaoui Trial in October”: This article appears today in The Washington Post. You can access at this link the motion that federal prosecutors filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The Eleventh Circuit’s web site is being inundated by those seeking access to that court’s ruling rejecting the appeal by Terri Schiavo’s parents: I have posted a backup copy of that ruling at this link.

My analysis of that decision, which I posted online within a half hour of the decision’s issuance at 2:32 a.m. eastern time today, can be accessed here.

“Lefkow killer’s suicide note reveals his hatred, plotting”: This article appears today in The Chicago Tribune.

“High court case combines celebrity and free speech; Man fights order banning him from talking about lawyer Johnnie Cochran”: Gail Gibson has this article today in The Baltimore Sun.

In The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Michael McGough reports that “Gag order on Cochran critic weighed; Justices dubious about extortion claim.”

Online at the First Amendment Center, Tony Mauro reports that “High court appears unsympathetic to famed attorney’s plight.”

In The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has articles headlined “Cities Get Break on Permitting of Cell Towers; The Supreme Court also restores an Orange County killer’s death sentence and backs up Simi Valley police in an excessive-force case” and “Justices Are Asked to Reject POWs’ Case Against Iraq; The White House says the suit stemming from the 1991 war would undermine rebuilding.”

The Washington Times reports that “Christian convert denied reversal of death sentence.”

And in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “U.S. Supreme Court reinstates sentence of Death Row inmate.” In the article, Egelko writes that “Justice Charles Breyer cast the decisive fifth vote.” That no doubt must come as a surprise to U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer.

“Support falters for the ‘nuclear option'”: The Washington Times today contains an article that begins, “Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist does not have firm support among his caucus to employ the so-called ‘nuclear option’ for dislodging the Democratic filibusters against President Bush’s judicial nominees.”

“Appeals Court Refuses to Order Schiavo’s Feeding Reinstated”: The New York Times provides this news update.

The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Parents Lose Appeal in Schiavo Case; In a 2-1 ruling, a federal panel refuses to order the woman’s feeding tube reinserted; The Schindlers are likely to turn to Supreme Court.”

USA Today reports that “Appeals court refuses to step in; Turns down plea from Terri Schiavo’s parents to restore her feeding tube.”

And the latest report from The Associated Press is headlined “Reinsertion of Schiavo Feeding Tube Denied.”

BREAKING NEWS — “Schiavo Appeal to Reconnected Tube Denied”: The Associated Press provides this report.

You can access this morning’s 2-1 ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit at this link.

The composition of the three-judge panel was what I anticipated it would be in this earlier post. Circuit Judges Ed Carnes and Frank M. Hull joined in the majority per curiam opinion. Circuit Judge Charles R. Wilson “strongly” dissented.

In a key paragraph, the majority opinion states:

For the reasons explained in the district court’s opinion, we agree that the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a substantial case on the merits of any of their claims. We also conclude that the district court’s carefully thought-out decision to deny temporary relief in these circumstances is not an abuse of discretion.

The majority also finds significant the particular noteworthy change made to the federal bill that I focused on in this earlier post.

Whether you agree or disagree with the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling, that court certainly deserves much praise for resolving the appeal in a very expeditious manner.

Although it is easy to succumb to overstatement at this especially early hour of the morning, the best hope that Terri Schiavo’s parents had for a ruling in their favor rested with the Eleventh Circuit. The odds that Circuit Justice Anthony M. Kennedy or a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in the parents’ favor — in disagreement with the rulings of the two lower courts — are very slender indeed.

The majority opinion concludes with the following paragraph:

There is no denying the absolute tragedy that has befallen Mrs. Schiavo. We all have our own family, our own loved ones, and our own children. However, we are called upon to make a collective, objective decision concerning a question of law. In the end, and no matter how much we wish Mrs. Schiavo had never suffered such a horrible accident, we are a nation of laws, and if we are to continue to be so, the pre-existing and well-established federal law governing injunctions as well as Pub. L. No. 109-3 must be applied to her case. While the position of our dissenting colleague has emotional appeal, we as judges must decide this case on the law.

The majority opinion’s concluding footnote imposes a 10 a.m. deadline for any petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. I will provide additional coverage of this matter a bit later this morning.