“Bush nominee imperils disabled citizens’ gains”: Today in The Baltimore Sun, Jim Ward has this op-ed about Fourth Circuit nominee Terrence W. Boyle. Thanks to the “Disability Law” blog for the pointer.

Happy anniversary! I can’t let the day pass by without noting that today is the one-year anniversary of the date on which legalaffairs.org began hosting this blog.

“Supreme Court to discuss MHSAA case on April 29”: The Detroit Free Press today contains an article that begins, “The Michigan High School Athletic Association should know by May 2 if the U.S. Supreme Court will hear its appeal of a gender-equity lawsuit, which could force the association to change the seasons in which several sports are played.”

“Court hears Ohio death-row case”: Michael McGough has this article today in The Toledo Blade.

“Piercing case review sought”: The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts today contains an article that begins, “A woman who was fired by Costco Wholesale Corp. in West Springfield in 2001 for refusing to remove her eyebrow ring is seeking a review of her case by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“DeLay amplifies knocks on judges; International law and Web shouldn’t sway Kennedy’s decisions, he says”: This article appears today in The Houston Chronicle.

“Lobby urges Specter to keep filibuster intact”: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today contains an article that begins, “As the Senate’s Republican leaders draw closer to calling a vote on the controversial rule change that would essentially strip minority Democrats of their ability to block controversial judicial nominees, a liberal group today will begin targeting Pennsylvania’s Republican Sen. Arlen Specter through TV ads running in the Keystone State.” I, for one, will be shocked if Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) votes in favor of the so-called “nuclear option.”

Online at Slate, Chris Cillizza has an essay entitled “The Rules of the Senate: What they are, why they matter, and how they’ll figure in the filibuster fight.”

Yesterday, The Virginian-Pilot contained an editorial entitled “The high road on filibusters.”

In The Denver Post, columnist Al Knight has an op-ed entitled “Common ground elusive in U.S. Senate.”

In The Oregonian, columnist David Sarasohn has an essay entitled “Right wing to the judiciary: Judge Not.”

In The Dallas Morning News, Mark Davis has an essay entitled “Politics can have a place at the pulpit, too.”

In The Boston Herald, Guy Darst has an essay entitled “Courts still need restraint.”

And in The Orion of California State University Chico, Gregory Leben has an op-ed entitled “Filibuster debate goes on and on.”

“Justices Raise the Bar on Stock Fraud Cases; A plunge in share price is not grounds for a suit even if investors were lured by a company’s inflated claims, the Supreme Court rules”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Supreme Court overturns investor-friendly ruling on securities fraud.”

In Financial Times, Patti Waldmeir reports that “Court refuses to make securities fraud suits easier.”

The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that “Drugmaker wins in stock fraud lawsuit; Supreme Court declines to ease standard on claims.”

And The San Francisco Examiner reports that “High court keeps securities fraud standard.”

“High Court Is Set to Hear Case of Research vs. Patents”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

The Boston Globe reports today that “Drug makers see high stakes in patent fight; Case could affect future of industry.”

The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina reports that “Patent case arrives at top; High court may affect drug companies.”

And Hope Yen of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court Reviews Drug Patents.”