“Possible Court Nominees Pose a Quandary for Bush; A Conservative Anchor vs. an Ethnic First”: Sunday’s edition of The Washington Post will contain this front page article.

“Lawmakers Trying Again to Divide Ninth Circuit”: This article will appear Sunday in The New York Times.

“Senators collaborate on judicial nominees”: The St. Petersburg Times today contains an article that begins, “U.S. Senators Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez are reestablishing a joint judicial nominating commission to review federal judiciary appointments.”

“One ‘Citizens’ bank agrees to drop name; Butler firm will cede rights to national company”: This article appears today in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The dispute previously led to a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. And in earlier coverage, The Boston Globe in September 2004 published an article headlined “The John Smith of banks; As it expands across US, all-too-common name spells grief for Citizens.”

“Victims’ rights monument stirs trouble; Courthouse site could influence jurors, some say”: The Associated Press provides this report from Lubbock, Texas.

“Bush Weighs Possible High Court Vacancy”: The Associated Press provides this report, along with a related item headlined “A Look at Likely Supreme Court Candidates.”

Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro has an article headlined “Well-Connected Judge on Supreme Court Short List.”

And Dahlia Lithwick’s essay from this month’s issue of The American Lawyer is headlined “An Inside Look at Supreme Court Decision-Making.”

“File Swappers Get Creative as Wheels of Justice Turn”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “In the more than three years it took for the Grokster case to percolate up to the Supreme Court, the file-sharing landscape has so shifted that many users have moved from early peer-to-peer networks to more efficient or discreet ways of getting digital music.”

“High court denies McKenna’s request”: Yesterday’s edition of The Providence (R.I.) Journal contained an article that begins, “The state Supreme Court yesterday denied Providence lawyer Keven A. McKenna’s request to reargue the lawsuit that claimed Frank J. Williams is no longer the high court’s chief justice.”

“Congress Assaults the Courts, Again”: This editorial appears today in The New York Times.

“Female Judges Matter: Gender and Collegial Decisionmaking in the Federal Appellate Courts.” Jennifer L. Peresie has this Note in the May 2005 issue of The Yale Law Journal.

A list of the final seventeen argued cases that remain pending for decision this Term before the U.S. Supreme Court: Perhaps, like me, you are interested in knowing which cases presenting what issues remain for decision as the Court enters the final two weeks of its current Term.

I have assembled the list that follows using the following resources: “Status of Cases Argued – 2004 Term” prepared by the law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP; Medill School of Journalism‘s “On the Docket“; and oral argument transcripts and docket entries provided over the U.S. Supreme Court’s web site.

The argued cases yet to be decided this Term are listed in order of oral argument, with the case argued longest ago listed first:

1. Rompilla v. Beard, No. 04-5462, click here to access the questions presented in this death penalty case (argued January 18, 2005);
2. Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108, click here to access the question presented in this eminent domain-takings case (argued February 22, 2005);
3. Orff v. United States, No. 03-1566, click here to access the question presented in this third-party beneficiary breach of federal contract case (argued February 23, 2005);
4. Exxon Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., No. 04-70, and Ortega v. Starkist Foods, No. 04-79 (consolidated cases), click here to access the questions presented in these cases involving whether 28 U.S.C. §1367 authorizes the district courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related claims of additional plaintiffs or plaintiff class members who do not themselves satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement (argued March 1, 2005);
5. Van Orden v. Perry, No. 03-1500, click here to access the question presented in this Ten Commandments case from Texas (argued March 2, 2005);
6. McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, No. 03-1693, click here to access the questions presented in this Ten Commandments case from Kentucky (argued March 2, 2005);
7. Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278, click here to access the questions presented in this case involving a procedural due process claim against a local government for its failure to protect the holder of a partial restraining order from private violence (argued March 21, 2005);
8. Dodd v. United States, No. 04-5286, click here to access the question presented in this federal habeas corpus statute of limitations case (argued March 22, 2005);
9. San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco, No. 04-340, click here to access the question presented in this takings clause-issue preclusion case (argued March 28, 2005);
10. MGM Studios v. Grokster, No. 04-480, click here to access the question presented in this copyright, file sharing, vicarious liability case (argued March 29, 2005);
11. Nat’l Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., No. 04-277, and FCC v. Brand X Internet Servs., No. 04-281 (consolidated cases), click here to access the questions presented in this case involving the FCC’s regulation of cable internet services (argued March 29, 2005);
12. Mayle v. Felix, No. 04-563, click here to access the question presented in this case involving relation-back for statute of limitations purposes of an amendment to a state habeas corpus petition (argued April 19, 2005);
13. Graham County Water Dist. v. United States, No. 04-169, click here to access the question presented in this case involving which statute of limitation should apply to a claim of retaliatory discharge actions under the False Claims Act (argued April 20, 2005);
14. Halbert v. Michigan, No. 03-10198, click here to access the questions presented in this case that seeks to establish a Fourteenth Amendment due process right of appointed counsel for indigent defendants convicted by guilty plea (argued April 25, 2005);
15. Gonzalez v. Crosby, No. 04-6432, click here to access the question presented in this case involving whether a Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b) motion in a habeas case constitutes a prohibited “second or successive” petition as a matter of law (argued April 25, 2005);
16. American Trucking Ass’ns v. MI Public Service Comm’n, No. 03-1230, and Mid-Con Freight Sys. v. MI Public Service Comm’n, No. 03-1234 (consolidated cases), click here to access the questions presented in this case challenging Michigan’s $100 fee on vehicles conducting intrastate operations (argued April 26, 2005); and
17. Bell v. Thompson, No. 04-514, click here to access the question presented in this death penalty case challenging the Sixth Circuit’s withdrawal of its opinion affirming the denial of habeas corpus relief six months after the time when issuance of that court’s mandate became mandatory (argued April 26, 2005)

The Supreme Court will next issue orders and opinions on Monday, June 20, 2005. If the Court also issues opinions on a second day later that week, the Court would be in position to announce its final opinions in argued cases on Monday, June 27, 2005.

“Civil union dissolution withstands challenge; The decision says those who wanted to overturn a judge’s order to void a lesbian union had no right to interfere”: This article appears today in The Des Moines Register, along with a related editorial entitled “Court correct to dump same-sex divorce challenge; Disagreeing with a ruling doesn’t grant right to sue.”

The Sioux City Journal reports today that “Supreme Court throws out lesbian dissolution challenge.”

And The Quad-City Times reports that “Challenge to lesbian divorce rejected.”

“The Filibuster: A Tool for Good and Bad.” Columnist Colbert I. King has this op-ed today in The Washington Post.

“Former Clerks Pay Tribute To ‘The Chief'”: Charles Lane has this article today in The Washington Post.