“Specter Aims to Beat Cancer to Guide Judiciary Hearings”: This lengthy article will appear Saturday in The Los Angeles Times.

“U.S. Court Backs Bush’s Changes on Clean Air Act”: Saturday’s edition of The New York Times will contain this article.

Available online from law.com: An article reports that “Clarence Thomas to Speak at Ga. Justice’s Swearing-in Ceremony.”

And Alan J. Haus has an essay entitled “Forget ‘Grokster’ — Copyright Infringement Remains an ‘At Your Own Risk’ Activity.”

“Ashcroft Gone, Justice Statues Disrobe”: The Associated Press provides this report. We bloggers did our best to ensure that attention never slipped away from this urgent matter.

Dahlia Lithwick is “Worrying About McAmerica”: You can read her latest here at Slate.

“Lawmakers consider providing protections against eminent domain”: The Associated Press provides this report from Connecticut.

The Wall Street Journal Online offers “A Closer Look at Eminent Domain; What the High Court’s Decision May Mean for Homeowners” (pass-through link).

The Lincoln (Neb.) Journal Star reports that “Ruling sanctions property seizures.”

Religion News Service reports that “Experts Warn Houses of Worship at Risk After Court Ruling.”

The Daily Leader of Brookhaven, Mississippi reports that “Eminent domain ruling surprises area mayors.”

CNN/Money provides a report headlined “Eminent domain: A big-box bonanza? Court’s ruling OKed land grab for business like Target, Home Depot, CostCo, Bed Bath & Beyond.”

Saturday’s edition of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel will contain an editorial entitled “A troubling court ruling.”

And Pfizer Inc today issued a press release entitled “Key Facts Regarding U.S. Supreme Court Hearing.”

“Marshals Service Director Resigns”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Under criticism over inadequate security for federal judges, the director of the U.S. Marshals Service announced his resignation Friday.”

The letter of resignation and the Attorney General’s response can be accessed here.

“To Confirm Their Judge, Republicans Abandoned Their Ideas”: Jonathan Rauch has this essay online today at National Journal.

“Supreme Court upholds appeal in Exxon dealer case”: The South Florida Business Journal provides this report.

“Justice Kennedy: Lawyers must defend judiciary from attacks.” The Associated Press provides this report.

“An Important Sentencing Ruling from the California Supreme Court: Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s Recent Sentencing Upheaval, California’s System is Held to Be Valid.” FindLaw commentator Vikram David Amar has this essay today.

“Justice Janice Rogers Brown”: Today at CNSNews.com, Larry Pratt has an essay that begins, “Oh, how the liberals love to hate this jurist.”

“It’s Time for a Tribute: Women voters are losing faith in the GOP; Could Bush win them back with an unexpected pick to lead the Supreme Court?” Eleanor Clift has this essay online this afternoon at Newsweek’s web site.

Does a bartender terminated for refusing to wear makeup possess a valid claim for sex discrimination in violation of Title VII? On Wednesday, an eleven-judge en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in Jesperson v. Harrah’s Operating Company. You can download the en banc oral argument audio (Windows Media format) by right-clicking on this link and saving the audio file to your computer.

“That the meaning of the United States Constitution depends on its interpretation by judges is so obvious that professions of shock at the idea are hard to take seriously.” So writes Anthony Lewis in his review, published in the July 14, 2005 issue of The New York Review of Books, of Floyd Abrams’s book “Speaking Freely: Trials of the First Amendment.”

“Brownback committee reviews Roe v. Wade”: The Wichita Eagle today contains this article reporting on a hearing (link to prepared statements of witnesses) that occurred yesterday before the Senate Judiciary Committee‘s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights.

“Giving Chutzpah New Meaning”: Jon Wiener has this essay in the July 11, 2005 issue of The Nation.

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Jurors Mull Rare Vt. Death Penalty Case“; “Iowa Law Creates Buffer Zone for Molesters“; and “Lawyer in Assassination Plot in Catch 22.”

U.S. District Judge refuses to take judicial notice of Jessica Simpson‘s hotness: “Class Maledictorian” and “Life, Law, Libido” both ask whether the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has entered an injunction blocking the release of the new “Dukes of Hazzard” movie.

See for yourself: I have posted the district court’s order here and opinion here. The question of Jessica Simpson’s hotness (referenced on page 24 of the district court’s opinion), to the extent that it remains relevant, now appears to be pending on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Update: An update to the original post at L-Cubed now notes that the litigation has settled (details here, 11th item), making the question of Jessica Simpson’s hotness moot from an Article III perspective.

“The right court: George W. Bush’s quest for conservative justice.” At Macleans.ca, Luiza Ch. Savage has this essay.

“On the Eve of an Expected Supreme Court Vacancy”: Ralph G. Neas, President of People For the American Way, has issued this press release today.

“Homeowners Lose Eminent Domain Case; Institute for Justice Warns: Supreme Court Leaves Homeowners Vulnerable To Tax-Hungry Bureaucrats & Land-Hungry Developers.” The Institute for Justice, which has been involved in the New London eminent domain case from the beginning, issued this press release yesterday and is promoting its Castle Coalition web site in response to yesterday’s ruling.

“Supreme Court Retirements Unpredictable”: Gina Holland of The Associated Press provides this report.

And Reuters reports that “Interest groups gear up for Supreme Court fight.”

“White House starts search for new justice”: This article appears today in The Washington Times.

“Appeals Court Sides With EPA on Plants”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“High court upholds eminent domain; Private homes, businesses can be seized as part of economic revitalization; Cities are handed broad powers”: Gail Gibson has this article today in The Baltimore Sun, which also contains a related article headlined “Acquisitions fueled a rebirth.”

The Chicago Tribune reports today that “Ruling on property rights makes owners vulnerable.”

The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that “Developers score in court; ‘Public use’ can be financial as eminent domain evolves.”

The Toronto Globe and Mail reports that “U.S. property laws starting to resemble Canada’s, experts say.”

The Des Moines Register reports that “D.M. projects unfazed by U.S. justices’ ruling; The Supreme Court backs a law, like Iowa’s, that lets officials take land for redevelopment,” while a related editorial is entitled “Court rightly preserves key redevelopment tool; It’s OK to take private property for economic renewal.”

The Honolulu Star-Bulletin reports that “Hawaii leads way to ruling on property seizure; A Supreme Court decision on the taking of property will not affect the state.”

The Arizona Republic contains articles headlined “Private property ruling stirs concerns; Justices widen cities’ power to seize land” and “Court boosts city’s leverage; Downtown sites could be condemned.”

The Arizona Daily Star reports that “Arizona opposition likely to high-court land ruling.”

The Cincinnati Enquirer contains an article headlined “Court: Cities may seize homes; ‘Eminent domain’ includes economic development” and an editorial entitled “Court cripples property rights.”

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that “Ruling’s impact could be felt soon in local suburbs.”

The Dayton Daily News reports that “Riverside says court ruling backs its plan; Reclaimed properties to prepare for new development.”

The New York Daily News contains articles headlined “Home’s up for grabs; Ruling ramps up anxiety in city” and “Unfair & un-American, biz cries.”

The Sacramento Bee reports that “Redevelopment staff pleased in Sacramento.”

The Indianapolis Star reports that “Ruling’s effect on Indiana evaluated; City attorney sees little impact since state’s law is different from Connecticut’s.”

The Journal Gazette of Fort Wayne reports that “Local fallout likely limited, officials say.”

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “Eminent-domain ruling dismays N.J., Pa. owners in bulldozers’ path.”

The Harrisburg Patriot-News contains articles headlined “Ruling expands power to take homes; Ruling lets your town take your home” and “State laws can offer protection, opinion says.”

The Denver Post reports that “Court spurs mixed reaction; Experts say Colo. law restricts use of eminent domain, but critics still worry.”

The Rocky Mountain News contains an article headlined “Area leaders divided over impact of ruling” and an editorial entitled “Dark days ahead for property owners; Supreme Court broadens eminent domain.”

The Durango Herald reports that “Durango flinches at eminent domain ruling.”

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that “Washington Constitution limits ’eminent domain’ takings.”

The Deseret Morning News reports that “Justices’ ruling favors cities in use of eminent domain; Utah Legislature limits will likely mitigate ruling.”

The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger contains articles headlined “Court rules cities can seize homes; Towns receive expanded powers to foster economic development” and “In 55 N.J. towns, planners watch as the light turns green.”

The Gloucester County Times reports that “Redevelopment foes remain firm despite eminent domain ruling.”

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel contains an article headlined “A looser rein on eminent domain; High court affirms use in developments; local projects may benefit.”

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that “Opinion split over ruling’s effect in Minnesota.”

The Knoxville News-Sentinel reports that “Officials say decision will have little impact here.”

The Natchez Democrat reports that “Court ruling may affect local communities.”

The Clarion-Ledger reports that “High court OKs Conn. land seizure; Ruling says federal government has no jurisdiction in state eminent domain cases.”

The Miami Herald reports that “Ruling on land is vital locally; Hollywood leaders took notice on Thursday when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld state and local governments’ power to take private land for economic development.”

The South Florida Sun Sentinel reports that “Family vows to fight to keep building that Hollywood wants for redevelopment.”

The Bradenton Herald reports that “Eminent domain ruling not yet a factor in local projects.”

The Orange County Register reports that “Land seizure upheld; High court eminent-domain ruling favors cities’ rights, but California has tough laws.”

The Press-Enterprise of Riverside, California reports that “Justices dilute land rights; The court says private property can be seized and converted to more profitable private use.”

The Ventura County Star reports that “California law likely to blunt effects of decision.”

The San Mateo County Times reports that “Ruling comes too late for Redwood City.”

The Boston Herald reports that “High court bolsters municipal land grabs.”

The Huntsville Times reports that “Local governments know issue ‘sensitive.’”

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports that “Eminent-domain ruling likely backs state law, attorneys say.”

The Northwest Arkansas Times reports that “City attorney says Supreme Court’s ruling on eminent domain likely won’t affect Fayetteville development.”

The Journal News of Westchester, New York reports that “High court ruling stirs IKEA battle memories.”

The Lexington Herald-Leader reports that “Supreme Court ruling might revive Richmond bid.”

And The Pantagraph of Bloomington, Illinois reports that “Eminent domain ruling won’t affect Normal.”

In commentary, The Detroit Free Press contains an editorial entitled “Condemnation: Michigan standard a model for other states.”

The Providence Journal contains an editorial entitled “The little people get hit.”

And The Bangor Daily News contains an editorial entitled “Takings Advantage.”

“Disputed tactic stalled court attack response”: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution today contains an article that begins, “Two months before the courthouse shootings, Fulton County sheriff’s officials changed the way they responded to emergencies at the downtown complex, a change that may have cost valuable time in responding to the crisis — and perhaps lives.”

“Coast Panel’s Legitimacy Is Upheld”: Maura Dolan has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

The San Diego Union-Tribune reports today that “State high court rules for Coastal Commission.”

And The Oakland Tribune reports today that “State Supreme Court affirms Coastal Commission’s power; Legal challenges halted; board free to continue to make land-use decisions.”

“Court: Michigan must provide lawyers for poor who plead guilty, appeal.” Michael McGough has this article today in The Toledo Blade.

Not a great case for the Nation’s most homophonic-phobic judge: At “PrawfsBlawg,” Kaimi Wenger considers the precedents that would be in play if a town decided, based on thermal imaging, which homes to condemn for economic redevelopment purposes.

“Supreme Speculation”: Howard Kurtz has this essay online at washingtonpost.com.

“Court shifting more to the right; 2 new judges will change the tenor”: The Associated Press provides this Sixth Circuit-related report.

“Four years later, her T-shirt is legal; The state Supreme Court throws out a law against wearing police insignias, overturning a Pinellas woman’s conviction”: This article appears today in The St. Petersburg Times.

And The Tampa Tribune reports today that “Wearing Police Clothing Is Legal.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Florida at this link.

Not dead or retired yet: The Washington Post yesterday afternoon published online the following correction:

A headline and article summary that appeared to indicate that Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist had either retired or died was inadvertently published on washingtonpost.com and through a washingtonpost.com RSS feed on June 23. The headline and summary have been retracted and no longer appear on the site.

More details here, and click here for the screen shot. (Via “Life, Law, Libido.”)

Update: The headlines remain available here (at least as of this moment; scroll down to the bottom of the page) via Bloglines, but the links themselves fail to bring up the articles.

“US judiciary under the gun”: The Australian today contains an article that begins, “For all the recent criticism that Australian politicians don’t lend enough support to judges at times of controversy or crisis, members of the local judiciary are faring reasonably well compared with their US counterparts.”