“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.

“Vermont Jury Gets Rare Death-Penalty Case”: This segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered.”

“Thomas, the sole black justice, a critic of discrimination claims”: Stephen Henderson of Knight Ridder Newspapers provides this report.

On Monday, the Supreme Court of California is scheduled to announce the impact of Blakely and Booker on criminal sentencing in that State: A description of the cases in which that court is scheduled to announce opinions on Monday can be accessed here.

“Book Criticizes Sept. 11 Panel’s Suggestions”: Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner is featured on this segment (RealPlayer required) from this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered.”

Former D.C. Circuit Judge Kenneth W. Starr moderates a debate between Ninth Circuit Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Alex Kozinski: Thanks to C-SPAN, you can access the debate online, on-demand by clicking here (RealPlayer required).

C-SPAN’s web site describes the event as follows:

At the 13th Annual California Court Panel, Ninth Circuit Judges Alex Kozinski and Stephen Reinhardt discuss “Where Will Another Right Turn Take Us?” The panelists will analyze and discuss — from a liberal and conservative perspective — recent Supreme Court decisions and potential decisions on cases still pending before the 2004-05 U.S. Supreme Court term. The panel is moderated by Ken Starr.

The event was sponsored by the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles and was videotaped this past Wednesday in Beverly Hills, California.

“Bush Advised to Wait on Top Court Nominee”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press provides this report.

“State Supreme Court limits ruling on sentences”: The Seattle Times today contains an article that begins, “The state Supreme Court yesterday significantly limited the scope of a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that critics worried would shorten the sentences of countless inmates.”

And The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports today that “Court limits inmate appeals of extra-long sentences.”

“Pornography purveyors sue AG in federal court”: This article appears today in The Rocky Mountain News.

“Application of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340–2340A to the Music of Christina Aguilera”: The blog “Underneath Their Robes” offers this post.

The Daily Journal of California is reporting: In coverage of yesterday’s rulings from the Supreme Court of California, you can access online articles headlined “Big Punitives Still Available as Deterrent; State Supreme Court Sets Damage Issue For California Cases” and “Roller Coaster is Common Carrier, Court Rules.”

“Court Sets Punitives Guidelines; Businesses, plaintiffs both claim win as justices interpret ‘State Farm'”: Jeff Chorney has this article today in The Recorder of of San Francisco, California.

“Possible Vacancy on High Court”: This segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition.”

“Therapist to appeal to Supreme Court”: The Denver Post today contains an article that begins, “A federal appeals court Thursday dealt a major setback to a civilian Colorado Springs therapist hoping to stay out of jail, saying an Air Force judge in Texas acted properly in ordering her arrest for withholding rape-counseling records from the Air Force.”

And The Rocky Mountain News reports today that “Court rules against therapist; Appeals judges back military in dispute over patient records.”

“Iowa judge’s ruling in lesbian divorce case will stand”: The Des Moines Register provides this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Court Won’t Challenge Civil Union Ruling.”

“Catching drunk drivers paramount, court rules”: The Toronto Globe and Mail today contains an article that begins, “Police in Manitoba had a right to assess the sobriety of two drivers at a roadside check even though the men had not been instructed of their right to legal counsel, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled yesterday.”

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

Battle over the Unabomber’s stuff is argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel — consisting of Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder, Circuit Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, and Senior Circuit Judge William C. Canby (all of whom, coincidentally, are based in Phoenix) — yesterday heard oral argument in San Francisco of an appeal involving whether Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski possesses the right to donate writings and other belongings seized from his Montana cabin to his alma mater, the University of Michigan.

As I mentioned here last night, David Kravets of The Associated Press covered the oral argument in a report headlined “Fight Over Unabomber Materials in Court.”

Thanks to the Ninth Circuit’s web site, you can download the oral argument audio (Windows Media format) in this interesting case by right-clicking on this link and saving the audio file to your computer.

“Gay man awarded new hearing in child custody case; Court of Appeals rules in matter from Virginia”: This article appears today in The Baltimore Sun. You can access Monday’s unreported opinion of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals at this link (51-page scanned PDF file).

BREAKING NEWS — Unanimous Supreme Court of Iowa rebuffs challenge to Iowa trial court’s order dissolving a Vermont same-sex civil union: You can access today’s ruling at this link. The court holds that the order’s challengers, because they were not parties to the trial court proceeding, lack standing to have their objections decided on the merits.

Update: Yesterday at the blog “A Stitch in Haste,” KipEsquire previewed the ruling in a post titled “The Court Not Giveth, But the Court Still Taketh Away?”

“Delta cleared in alcohol suit; High court rules airline not responsible for driver who caused an accident after drinking on flight”: Today in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Bill Rankin has this article reporting on a decision that the Supreme Court of Georgia issued yesterday.

“Ruling expected today on gay divorce challenge”: The Sioux City Journal today contains an article that begins, “The Iowa Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling today on whether a Woodbury County judge acted properly in granting a lesbian couple a divorce two years ago, a case that inspired outrage from opponents of gay marriage. The couple, both Iowans, had traveled to Vermont to obtain a civil union, which in that state gives gay couples many of the same legal benefits of marriage. Once the relationship ended, the couple sought a divorce in Iowa because Vermont only allows divorces for people who have lived there for a year.”

“What Exactly Is Judicial Activism? The Charges Made Against the President’s Judicial Nominees.” FindLaw commentator John W. Dean has this essay online today.

In news from Boston: The Boston Globe today contains articles headlined “Court backs Lynn use of race in school plan; Voluntary system of student transfer” and “Romney backs new effort to prohibit gay marriages; Proposal for ballot excludes civil unions.”

And The Boston Herald reports today that “In switch, Mitt goes anti-gay union.”

“Texas names are high on list of could-be justices”: The Fort Worth Star-Telegram today contains an article that begins, “At least eight Texans are being mentioned as potential Supreme Court nominees as anticipation builds over prospects that President Bush soon may face his first vacancy on the high court.”