The Los Angeles Times is reporting: David G. Savage has a news update headlined “Justices Rule File-Sharing Services Can Be Held Liable for Theft.”

And in other news, “High Court: Cable Companies Don’t Have to Share Lines.”

Available online from National Public Radio: This evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained segments entitled “High Court Allows Commandments Display” (featuring Nina Totenberg); “High Court Rules Against Grokster“; “Reporters on CIA Leak Seek Right of Appeal“; and “Supreme Court Weighs ISP Control of Data.”

And today’s broadcast of “Talk of the Nation” contained segments entitled “High Court Rulings Split on Commandment Displays” (featuring David G. Savage); “Supreme Court Rules Against Grokster” (featuring Tony Mauro); and “High Court Won’t Hear Jailed Journalists’ Case.”

RealPlayer is required to launch these audio files.

“Aguirre: Commandments rulings show Soledad cross is religious symbol.” The web site of The San Diego Union-Tribune provides a news update that begins, “San Diego’s city attorney opined Monday that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on public displays of the Ten Commandments does not help the effort to prevent the removal of the cross from atop Mount Soledad.”

“The File Sharing Fight’s Not Over: The entertainment industry won the Grokster case; But the narrow decision leaves open the possibility that other peer-to-peer services could be legal.” Roger Parloff has this essay online at Fortune.

“Court sides with police in restraining-order case”: In addition to the two articles I earlier noted here, Warren Richey will also have this article in Tuesday’s edition of The Christian Science Monitor.

And the newspaper will contain an editorial entitled “Limits of Religion in Public Life: Court acts wisely on Ten Commandments rulings.”

“Rehnquist Throws Down The Gavel, But Not The Towel; Amid speculation over Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s resignation, the Supreme Court rules on a pair of Ten Commandment cases and one on Internet file-sharing”: Time magazine provides this online report.

Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro reports on “Mixed Results in Ten Commandments Case.”

And in other news, “Justices Shake Up Landscape in High-Tech Cases” and “Justices: Can’t File Federal Suits Over State Restraining Orders.”

“Court rules against file-trading networks”: Reuters provides this report.

“Breyer casts decisive vote on religious displays; Justice: Old monuments with Commandments are OK; new displays are not.” Tom Curry, national affairs writer for MSNBC, provides this report.

“A year after ruling, Guantanamo detainees remain in legal limbo”: Frank Davies of Knight Ridder Newspapers provides this report.

“Rehnquist’s Court”: This segment (RealPlayer required) appeared today on the public radio program “The Connection.”

“Proper place for religion is outside the courtroom”: This article will appear Tuesday in The Times of London.

And CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen has an essay entitled “Deciphering The Commandment Case.”

Competitor’s internet pop-up ads don’t evidence trademark infringement, Second Circuit rules: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued this ruling today.

“Texas Commandments display OK”: Allen Pusey of The Dallas Morning News provides this update.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram provides a news update headlined “High court rules Commandments display allowable outside Capitol.”

And The San Antonio Express-News reports that “Abbott hails decision as victory for Texans, Americans.”

“Supreme Court split over Ten Commandments”: The Scripps Howard News Service provides this report.

And Bloomberg News reports that “Ten Commandments Displays Allowed by U.S. High Court.”

“Anti-class-action clause was unconscionable” in arbitration agreement, Supreme Court of California decides: At the “Arbitration Blog,” Ross Runkel has this post about a noteworthy ruling that California’s highest court issued today.

“The Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005”: U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced this legislation today in the U.S. Senate. The text of Senator Cornyn’s remarks can be accessed here.

On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day“: The broadcast contained segments entitled “Slate’s Jurisprudence: Last Supreme Court Rulings” (featuring Emily Bazelon); “Split Supreme Court Ruling on 10 Commandments“; and “Ruling Exposes Web File-Sharing to Lawsuits.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio files.

“US Court Backs Cable Companies on Internet Lines”: Reuters provides this report.

“Decision to bar display of faith ratchets up culture war”: Financial Times provides a news update that begins, “The Supreme Court stepped into one of the most contested fronts of the US culture war on Monday, ruling that the display of framed copies of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky courthouses crossed the constitutional line between church and state.”

“Justices Rule File-Sharing Services Can Be Held Liable for Theft”: The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.

“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.