“Split Opinions; For a High Court Nomination, Business Has Its Own Agenda; Corporate Lobby Diverges From Christian Groups On States-Rights Issue; A Breach Over Justice Breyer”: This front page article (pass-through link) appears today in The Wall Street Journal.

“ProfessorBainbridge.com” offers these thoughts on the article.

Update: The text of the article is also available here, via The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s web site.

The Associated Press is reporting: Gina Holland reports that “High Court to Consider Death Penalty Case.”

And in other news, “Prosecutor Seeks Death for Vt. Killer” and “Jury Acquits Ex-HealthSouth CEO Scrushy.”

Today’s other rulings of note from the D.C. Circuit: In the Wen Ho Lee case, an opinion issued today begins:

Five journalists appeal a District Court order holding them in contempt of court for refusing to answer questions regarding confidential sources in a non-party deposition in a civil case. They contend that the District Court improperly applied our precedent in Zerilli v. Smith, 656 F.2d 705 (D.C. Cir. 1981), to overcome a journalist’s qualified privilege to keep sources confidential. We hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in holding four of the five journalists in contempt and therefore affirm as to four of the Appellants. Because there was insufficient evidence to hold Appellant Jeff Gerth in contempt we reverse the District Court’s order as to him.

And a separate ruling issued today affirms the dismissal of a lawsuit filed against the Government of Japan by fifteen women from China, Taiwan, South Korea, and the Philippines alleging that Japanese soldiers routinely raped, tortured, and mutilated them, along with thousands of other women, in occupied countries before and during World War II.

In early press coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Contempt Finding Upheld Against Reporters.”

On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the D.C. Circuit dismisses the vitamin price-fixing antitrust claims at issue in Empagran S.A. vs. F. Hoffman-Laroche, Ltd. You can access today’s ruling at this link.

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court Order List: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston reports here that the Court today has agreed to review, once again, the case of Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc. My preview of that case can be accessed here.

In early press coverage, Gina Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court Steps Into Abortion Dispute.”

Today’s Order List can be accessed here.

“Anaheim Loses Its Battle for Now; Court of Appeal rules that team can call itself the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim for the rest of the season”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

And The Orange County Register reports today that “The closer is Angels keep L.A. in name; At least for the rest of this season, Anaheim learns from appeals court.”

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Ky. Residents Angry at Commandments Ruling” and “Groups Back Restraining Orders Amid Ruling.”

On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition“: This morning’s broadcast contained a report from Nina Totenberg entitled “Justices ‘Split Baby’ in Ten Commandments Rulings.”

The broadcast also contained segments entitled “Ruling on File Sharing Does Not Make Industry Immune” and “Despite High Court Ruling, Guantanamo Detainees in Limbo.”

RealPlayer is required to launch these audio clips.

Available at Salon.com: Farhad Manjoo has an essay entitled “A bitter defeat for the press: The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the Cooper-Miller case will do more than hurt two reporters — it will erode the press’s ability to cover sensitive stories.”

And Siva Vaidhyanathan has an essay entitled “Supreme Court’s unsound decision: Monday’s ruling against Grokster will do nothing to stop peer-to-peer file sharing — but it may well stifle technology innovation.”

“Bloggers Fighting Government Regulations”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Supreme Commandment: No divisiveness.” Law Professor Richard W. Garnett has this essay today at National Review Online.

“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.”

“Justices Split on Decalogue Displays; Religious Intent Is Cited In Texas, Kentucky Cases Over Ten Commandments”: Jess Bravin will have this article (pass-through link) Tuesday in The Wall Street Journal.

“‘Thou shalts’ polarize court; 5-4 ruling, bitter words reflect rift among justices”: This article will appear Tuesday in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

“Groups Gear Up for Supreme Court Battle”: FOXNews.com provides this report, along with a related report headlined “No Retirement News.”

“Divided Supreme Court splits Ten Commandments rulings”: Jan Crawford Greenburg will have this article Tuesday in The Chicago Tribune.

And Tuesday in The Dallas Morning News, Allen Pusey will report that “Texas wins Ten Commandments case; Capitol marker OK, but framed copies in Kentucky are not.”

In Tuesday’s issue of The Washington Post: Charles Lane will have a front page article headlined “Justices Disallow Ten Commandments in Courthouses; In Separate Decision, Court Upholds Displays on Government Land.”

And in other news, “Cable Firms Don’t Have to Share Networks, Court Rules.”

“Rehnquist still on the bench”: Newsday provides this news update.

“Don’t Stop Grokkin’; Apparent MGM v. Grokster slamdunk is really a mixed bag” Mike Godwin has this essay online today at Reason.

In Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times: Linda Greenhouse will report that “Justices Allow a Commandments Display, Bar Others” and “Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone.”

Also, Todd S. Purdum will have an article headlined “Anticipation of a Vacancy, but Silence Says Not Yet.”

“Supreme court rejects journalists’ appeal; Reporters face jail for refusing to name source”: This article appears Tuesday in The Guardian (UK).

“Ten Commandment Displays Allowed in Some Public Spaces”: This segment (transcript with link to audio) featuring The Chicago Tribune’s Jan Crawford Greenburg appeared on this evening’s broadcast of the PBS program “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.” You can also access audio (RealPlayer required) of Jan’s report on today’s other notable happenings at the Court.

“Saad puts 2008 heat on McCain”: Tuesday’s edition of The Hill will contain an article that begins, “Republican leaders in Michigan’s Macomb and Oakland counties are pressuring Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to win an up-or-down vote on a controversial judicial nominee from the Wolverine State. They want McCain to use his influence to persuade his colleagues to clear Henry Saad, the nominee to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who was left out of the judicial deal Senate centrists struck last month.”

“No Retirement Announcements at High Court”: Gina Holland of The Associated Press provides this updated report, in which historian David Garrow is quoted as saying that if no retirement is announced tomorrow, we can expect to see these same nine Justices back on the bench in October.

“Rulings on religious displays divide US”: This article appears Tuesday in The Telegraph (UK).

And Tuesday’s edition of The Minneapolis Star Tribune will contain an editorial entitled “Ten Commandments: Keeping the law alive.”

“Ten Commandments rulings leave both sides unsatisfied”: Stephen Henderson of Knight Ridder Newspapers provides this report.