“High court decides slew of hot-button cases in this term”: The Scripps Howard News Service provides this report.

Available online from c|net News.Com: You can access articles headlined “Supreme Court rules against file swapping” and “Cable wins Supreme Court battle.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor is reporting: In Tuesday’s edition of that newspaper, he will have articles headlined “Supreme Court splits on Ten Commandments” and “Internet file-sharing takes a hit.”

“Court Allows 10 Commandments on Seized Land”: The blog “ScrappleFace” reports here that “In a pair of rulings on the constitutionality of the 10 Commandments on government property, the Supreme Court today said the commandments may be displayed on public land if that property has been seized from private owners for ‘public purposes’ under eminent domain.”

On today’s broadcast of the public radio program “Here & Now“: The broadcast contained segments entitled “Supreme Court Announcements” and “Rehnquist’s Past.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Supreme Court Splits on Ten Commandments Displays”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.

“Court: Colo. Jurors May Question Witnesses.” The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday that jurors may submit questions to witnesses during criminal trials, saying the practice does not automatically harm the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Colorado at this link.

The wire services are reporting: James Vicini of Reuters reports that “High court recesses with no retirement” and “Justices issue mixed rulings on Ten Commandments.”

And Hope Yen of The Associated Press reports that “High Court to Review Gas-Fixing Case.” Also, look for The AP to correct Ms. Yen’s report headlined “Court Splits on Ten Commandments Displays” insofar as it currently states, “In that 5-4 ruling and another decision involving the positioning of a 6-foot granite monument of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas capitol, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was the swing vote.” While Justice O’Connor was in the majority in the case from Kentucky, she dissented in the case from Texas, where Justice Stephen G. Breyer provided the crucial fifth vote for the majority.

“High Court Issues Split Decisions on Commandments”: Nina Totenberg had this report (RealPlayer required) on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition.”

“Supreme Court Splits the Baby in 10 Commandments Cases; Fractured Opinions Leave Law in Shambles and Invite More Pointless Lawsuits”: The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has issued this press release.

“Supreme Court Declines to Hear Reporters’ Appeal in Leak Case”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times provides this news update.

Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post provides a news update headlined “High Court Rejects Appeals in CIA Leak Case; 2 Journalists Face Jail Time for Failing to Reveal Confidential Sources.”

And The Los Angeles Times provides a news update headlined “High Court Declines to Hear Appeal of Reporters in Plame Case.”

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court opinions in the final six argued cases from this Term: No retirements from the Court were announced at its public session this morning. The Court today did, however, deliver opinions in all six argued cases that remained to be decided this Term (the case names link to the Court’s opinions):

1. Van Orden v. Perry, No. 03-1500 (argued March 2, 2005);

2. McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, No. 03-1693 (argued March 2, 2005);

3. Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278 (argued March 21, 2005);

4. MGM Studios v. Grokster, No. 04-480 (argued March 29, 2005);

5. Nat’l Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., No. 04-277 (argued March 29, 2005); and

6. Bell v. Thompson, No. 04-514 (argued April 26, 2005).

The Court today also issued an Order List accepting five cases for review. “SCOTUSblog” provides this post listing the questions presented.

In press coverage, The Associated Press reports that “No Retirement Announcements at High Court.” Hope Yen of The Associated Press offers reports headlined “Court: File-Sharing Services May Be Sued“; “Court Splits on Ten Commandments Displays“; and “Cable Companies Don’t Need to Share Lines.” The AP’s Gina Holland reports that “Supreme Court Won’t Hear CIA Leak Case“; “Cops Can’t Be Sued for Restraining Orders“; and “High Court Rules Against Death Row Inmate.” And James Vicini of Reuters reports that “U.S. court rejects reporter appeals in leak probe” and “Court to decide Shell, Texaco gas case.”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has this report on the Court’s opinions today.

A preview of the U.S. Supreme Court‘s rulings today in two Ten Commandments cases: At 10:00 a.m., the Supreme Court will announce its rulings in Van Orden v. Perry, a Ten Commandments case from Texas (oral argument transcript here), and McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, a Ten Commandments case from Kentucky (oral argument transcript here).

The Fifth Circuit‘s decision in Van Orden can be accessed at this link, while the Sixth Circuit‘s decision in McCreary County can be accessed at this link.

I collected news coverage of the Supreme Court’s grant of review in these two Ten Commandments cases in this very large post from October 2004.

I collected news coverage of the Supreme Court oral arguments in these related cases in posts from March 2005 that you can access here and here.

And let’s not overlook the recent article headlined “Plaintiff expects to lose monument suit” that appeared in The Dallas Morning News.

My September 2003 appellate column was titled “Take two tablets: Courts struggle over where to draw the line between Church and State.”

Finally for now, how unconstitutional can the display of the Ten Commandments be if the Ninth Circuit — the court that once tried to strip the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance — includes them in its official seal? My coverage of the lawsuit challenging the Ninth Circuit’s seal can be accessed here, here, and here.

“Judgment call: Bush may get chance to reshape Supreme Court.” The Sacramento Bee contains this article today.

“Hundreds Await Rehnquist at High Court”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“A Revolution on Hold: As the Supreme Court embraced moderation, the conservative agenda stalled.” Tony Mauro has this essay online at law.com.

Available this morning at National Review Online: U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) has an essay entitled “R-E-S-P-E-C-T: For the law, for the Court, for the Constitution, for the nominee.”

And Ramesh Ponnuru has an essay entitled “Partial Justice: Alberto Gonzales’s recusal problem.”

“Key US file-sharing ruling looms; A decision in a key legal case that pits movie studios against the makers of file-sharing software is imminent”: BBC News provides this report.

“Life Tenure Is Too Long For Supreme Court Justices”: Stuart Taylor Jr. has this essay today in National Journal.

“Schiavo threats taught sympathy; The death threats first made Michael Schiavo’s attorney angry and scared; Then they got him to open his heart”: This article appears today in The St. Petersburg Times.

On the agenda: Just three hours from now, the Supreme Court of the United States will announce its rulings in the final six argued cases from this Term. You can access my list of those cases, including the questions they present, at this link. Stay tuned for complete coverage of what transpires today at the Court, including any news of retirements.

“Lobbyists can’t wait to push justice favorites”: This article appears today in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The Boston Globe today contains an editorial entitled “Supreme appointments.”

Robert Novak has an op-ed entitled “Gonzales for top court rankles right.”

And in The Washington Times, Eugene Hickok has an op-ed entitled “As the vacancy nears.”

“Supreme Court power trip”: Today in The Daily Texan, James Burnham has an op-ed that begins, “The past two weeks have been troubling at the Supreme Court. In two closely divided rulings, the Court has done a thorough job of eliminating constitutional restrictions on the government’s power.”

“High court ruling on land taking could rekindle efforts in Station District”: The Providence (R.I.) Journal today contains an article that begins, “With the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last week that governments can condemn private property for private as well as public purposes, some in Warwick are wondering what that might mean for the long-stalled Station District redevelopment project.”

And in commentary, Newsday today contains an editorial entitled “‘Taking’ for public good: Supreme Court’s property decision is logical but could easily be abused.”

The Seattle Times contains an editorial entitled “Private vs. Public land: Whose property right?”

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution contains an editorial entitled “Supreme disapproval: State must protect homeowners.”

The Tucson Citizen contains an editorial entitled “High court went too far in property case.”

And in The Washington Times, Edward Hudgins has an op-ed entitled “Your castle no more.”

“Amendment vote falls short; Kansas House action complicates school-funding issue”: The Kansas City Star today contains an article that begins, “Votes for a constitutional amendment limiting judicial powers over the Legislature fell short Sunday, leading some lawmakers to vow to oppose any response to the Supreme Court’s school-finance order.”

“Opinions split on rules’ displays, relevance”: The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina today contains an article that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court is expected today to set new rules for government displays of the Bible’s Ten Commandments.”

“The California Supreme Court’s Ruling on the ‘Indiana Jones’ Ride: Was the Court Mistaken When It Treated the Ride Like a City Bus?” FindLaw commentator Anthony J. Sebok has this essay today.

“Public records battle grew from a father’s frustration”: The Seattle Times contains this article today.

“High court ruling on file sharing could bring clarity; Legal battles slow products”: This article appears today in USA Today.

“Latest reversal par for the court; 5th Circuit rulings often struck down”: The Times-Picayune contains this article today.

“Lawyers: Detainees’ cases stalled in the legal system; Also allege pressure from interrogators to drop lawsuits.” This article appears today in USA Today. And in related news, “Rights groups detail ‘Kafkaesque’ U.S. detentions.”

“A scenario for Monday”: Lyle Denniston has this interesting post at “The Supreme Court Nomination Blog” about what to expect today.

“The Becker-Posner Blog” on Kelo v. City of New London and eminent domain: Professor Gary S. Becker comments here, while Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner comments here.

“Reporters Await Fallout of Not Naming Sources; Two journalists facing jail time are to find out whether the high court will hear their case”: This article appeared Sunday in The Los Angeles Times.

“High-Court Contenders Exchange Barbs; Judges Luttig and Wilkinson Of Richmond Panel Trade Withering Appraisals in Opinions”: Jess Bravin has this article (pass-through link) today in The Wall Street Journal.

I too have noted this phenomenon, in posts you can access here, here, here, here, and here.