“Rehnquist not stepping down, but not looking healthy”: Michael McGough has this article today in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. High Court Term Underscores Limits of Rehnquist Influence.”
Online at The New Republic, Alexander Barnes Dryer has an essay entitled “Court Gestures: A guide to the senators who would be at the center of a Supreme Court fight.”
And The Toledo Blade contains an editorial entitled “Supreme Court in transition?”
In news from Alabama: The Montgomery Advertiser today contains articles headlined “Moore’s monument wouldn’t pass test, experts agree” and “Ruling confounds monument backers.”
The Birmingham News contains an article headlined “Split on Commandments.”
The Huntsville Times contains an article headlined “Will rulings help Moore? Analysts divided.”
And The Mobile Register provides this report.
In news from Texas: The Austin American-Statesman reports today that “Ten Commandments statue at Capitol can stay; In separate ruling, court rules framed copies may not return to Kentucky courthouses.”
The Houston Chronicle today contains articles headlined “Will the displays stay? Court says yes, and no; The disputes will be decided on case-by-case basis” and “The fate of a courthouse display of a Bible is to be decided this year by the 5th Circuit; Both sides in local case optimistic.”
The Dallas Morning News reports that “Losing plaintiff had predicted defeat at court; Beyond that, homeless sometimes-lawyer defers to victorious Abbott.”
The San Antonio Express-News reports that “Court split on Ten Commandments.”
And The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that “Court clarifies rules for religious displays.”
In news from Kentucky: The Louisville Courier-Journal today contains articles headlined “5-4 rulings cite displays’ intent; Analysts: Issue far from settled“; “Plaintiff, ex-official disagree, but tone is still love thy neighbor; Both sides in case critical of outsiders“; “McCreary ends exhibit plans; officials upset“; “State law’s fate hazy; counties get ‘mixed bag’“; and “Other counties ponder future of their displays.”
The Lexington Herald Leader, meanwhile, contains an article headlined “McCreary, Pulaski displays go too far; But Austin’s can remain, Supreme Court says” and an editorial entitled “10 Commandments: Court rulings split but clear on Ky. cases.”
In news from Colorado: The Denver Post reports today that “Justices deny mom’s right to sue police; Court: Castle Rock cops couldn’t have known dad would kill kids.”
And The Rocky Mountain News reports today that “Justices back Castle Rock; Mom can’t sue cops in failure to prevent 3 daughters’ slaying.”
In today’s edition of USA Today: Joan Biskupic reports that “Rehnquist leaves them laughing — and guessing.”
An article is headlined “Court limits file sharing, display of Commandments; Sites can be held liable for piracy by their users.”
In related news, “Exhibits’ overall message, motive seen as key factors” and “Decisions leave some confused.”
An article reports that “Entertainment firms win file-sharing duel; Court rules sites could be held liable for piracy.”
And in other news, “Court rules cable firms don’t have to share lines.”
“Ruling Could Limit Access to Net”: This article (free access provided) appears today in The Wall Street Journal.
In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times: David G. Savage reports that “Justices Limit Public Display of Religion; The Supreme Court disallows posting the Ten Commandments in Kentucky courthouses; It allows them on the Texas Capitol grounds” and “Rehnquist Retirement Still Just Speculation.” He is also the co-author of an article headlined “Firms Can Be Held Liable for Net Piracy; High court sides with the entertainment industry in the fight against illegal file sharing.”
In other news, “Justices Keep Cell Door Open for 2 Reporters; The New York Times and Time magazine file new papers in federal district court after the Supreme Court declines to hear contempt case.”
Henry Weinstein reports that “High Court Shields Police Who Fail to Enforce Restraining Orders; Justices rule 7 to 2 that officers aren’t required by the Constitution to uphold such restrictions and that they should act at their discretion.”
And in other news, “Court Lets Cable Firms Bar Rivals From Internet Lines; Justices uphold a decision by the FCC; The ruling may limit choices for high-speed access.”
The newspaper also contains editorials entitled “Semi-Hooray for Hollywood…” and “…and a Get-Out-of-Jail Key.”
The Washington Post is reporting: In today’s newspaper, a front page article reports that “File-Sharing Firms Can Be Held Liable; Ruling Aids Entertainment Industry.”
In other news, “Christian Groups Plan More Monuments; Many Expect Confusion and Litigation on Ten Commandments to Continue.”
An article reports that “Reporters Lose Appeal, Face Jail Time; Supreme Court Refuses to Review Contempt Charge in Probe of Leak About CIA Agent.”
In other news, “Court Backs Town In Lawsuit Over Domestic Violence; Justices Allow Police Wide Discretion.”
Charles Lane reports that “Justices Back Tenn. Execution Despite Court Error.”
And an editorial is entitled “Ten Opinions,” while columnist George F. Will has an op-ed entitled “Thou Shalt Split Hairs.”
In today’s edition of The New York Times: Adam Liptak has articles headlined “Court Declines to Rule on Case of Reporters’ Refusal to Testify” and “Courts Grow Increasingly Skeptical of Any Special Protections for the Press.”
Linda Greenhouse and Lorne Manly report that “Justices Reinstate Suits on Internet File Sharing.” Related articles are headlined “Sharing Culture Likely to Pause but Not Wither” and “No Pot of Gold in Court Ruling for the Studios.”
An article reports that “Split Rulings on Displays Draw Praise and Dismay.”
And in other news, “Cable Wins Internet-Access Ruling.”
Meanwhile, the newspaper also contains editorials entitled “The Court Affirms Separation of Church and State…“; “Stands Strongly Against Theft on the Internet…“; and “And Strikes a Blow at a Strong Press.”
