In Monday’s edition of The New York Times: Neil A. Lewis will report that “Two Prosecutors Faulted Trials for Detainees.”

In other news, “New File-Sharing Techniques Are Likely to Test Court Decision.”

And an article will report that “Bible Course Becomes a Test for Public Schools in Texas.”

“Charter Member of Reagan Vanguard; Roberts Was Part of Legal Team Eager to Shift Course of Civil Rights Law”: Monday’s issue of The Washington Post will contain this front page article.

And Charles Lane will have an article headlined “On a Big Issue, Little Is Known.”

“Ten Commandments get an Indiana niche; Some lament monument being on private land”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.

In the August 8, 2005 issue of U.S. News & World Report: The cover story is headlined “Divided, We Stand: America’s long struggle to balance church and state isn’t getting any easier.”

And Gloria Borger has an essay entitled “How to Lose Smart” that begins, “Here’s what’s not a secret: Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts is a well-respected litigator, arguing cases before the high court 39 times.”

“If Roe goes, questions abound; What would happen if the high court throws out Roe vs. Wade?” This article appears today in The Dallas Morning News.

The Philadelphia Inquirer today contains an article headlined “The staying power of ‘Roe v. Wade’; The Supreme Court isn’t likely to flat-out reverse it; And the GOP wouldn’t likely want that, anyway; But we can expect some fierce battles.”

The August 8, 2005 issue of Newsweek will contain articles headlined “Roe’s Army Reloads: They’ve been dreading this moment for decades; How the pro-choice movement is readying for Roberts–and navigating a critical political crossroads” and “The Nominee: Roberts at the Revolution; As interest groups sift his record in the Reagan White House, colleagues recall the mood at the dawn of a conservative era.”

And The Miami Herald today reports that “Nominee John Roberts’ 2000 recount role gets spin but no traction.”

In commentary, David M. Lebedoff has an op-ed entitled “No misstep by Roberts is too small for New York Times” in The Minneapolis Star Tribune.

And in The San Antonio Express-News, columnist Victor Landa has an op-ed entitled “I’ll bet on it: Nominee a pawn in GOP’s plan.”

“Feinstein Gears Up for Roberts Hearings”: The Associated Press provides this report.

And today in The Sacramento Bee, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has an op-ed entitled “How to judge a judge: Justice nominee John Roberts must answer questions on philosophy but needn’t offer opinions on cases.”

“State’s top court rules beach-walking is OK; Tradition a right, Michigan justices say”: This article appeared yesterday in The Detroit Free Press.

In earlier coverage, The Associated Press reported back in February 2005 that “Sandy footsteps lead to court; Case could decide who can walk on beach.”

You can access this past Friday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Michigan at this link.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is reporting: Today’s newspaper contains an article headlined “The truth, yes, but the whole truth? Senators debate limits of what Roberts must reveal.”

And in other news, “Asylum-seekers find legal haven in Chicago-based appeals court; Prominent federal judge has lent support to those fearing persecution if deported.”

“Does Jane speak for John?” Ellen Goodman has this op-ed today in The Boston Globe.

The St. Petersburg Times is reporting: Today’s newspaper contains articles headlined “He wrote a story, and got exposed; A libel suit over a Sports Illustrated story has turned up some details regarding the writer’s work as a Florida lobbyist” and “Judicial comment sets Crist apart; His praise for the Schiavo case’s judges wins him the ire of activists and contrasts him with his rival.”

“The parties swap tunes for Roberts; Today the Democrats want specifics, and the GOP disagrees – the opposite of 12 years ago:” Today in The Philadelphia Inquirer, political analyst Dick Polman has this article.

In today’s issue of The Los Angeles Times: An article is headlined “View of High Court From the Street: An informal poll finds people aware of the significance of Justice O’Connor’s departure but less clear on the fine details of replacing her.”

And in other news, “A Killer’s Insanity, Cured; His recovery could mean freedom, and renewed controversy.”

In commentary published by The Washington Post: Today’s newspaper contains an editorial entitled “Young Lawyer Roberts.”

And Geoff Earle has an essay entitled “Forget His Resume. What’s His Regimen?”

Available online from The New York Times: The newspaper offers an item titled “Interactive Feature: The Roberts Opinions.”

And the Week in Review section of today’s newspaper contains an item headlined “Judge Roberts, Meet Daniel Webster.”

In U.S. Supreme Court nominee-related commentary: The Rocky Mountain News today contains an editorial entitled “The fishing party.”

In The Palm Beach Post, columnist Stebbins Jefferson has an op-ed entitled “Can Roberts channel O’Connor?”

In The Decatur Daily, James L. Evans has an op-ed entitled “Called to a higher standard.”

And Edwin Meese and Todd Gaziano of The Heritage Foundation have an op-ed entitled “Roberts won’t get to play by the Ginsburg Rules.”

“State panel urged to probe congressman”: The Chicago Tribune today contains an article that begins, “The state agency that oversees lawyer conduct in Wisconsin has been asked to investigate Rep. James Sensenbrenner for sending a private letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago demanding a longer prison sentence for a drug courier.” The blog “Sentencing Law and Policy” says here that it has received and is posting online a copy of the letter.

“John Roberts’s Other Papers: Portrait of the judge as an undergraduate.” Matthew Continetti will have this essay in the August 8, 2005 issue of The Weekly Standard.

In Sunday’s issue of The New York Times Magazine: An interview with U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) will bear the headline “Judicial Opinion.”

And William Safire’s “On Language” column will appear under the heading “Desecration.”

“In courtroom, high-tech can be high risk; Critics say the increased use of machines instead of court reporters places a higher priority on cost-cutting than fairness”: This article appears today in The St. Petersburg Times.

“As Clerk for Rehnquist, Nominee Stood Out for Conservative Rigor”: Adam Liptak and Todd S. Purdum will have this article Sunday in The New York Times.

“Bad News”: This lengthy essay by Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner begins on the cover of tomorrow’s issue of The New York Times Sunday Book Review. In his essay, Judge Posner addresses among other things the interplay between the news media and blogs.

“U.S. Judge Voids Portion of Patriot Act as Illegally Vague; The jurist says wording on ‘expert advice’ and ‘training’ is imprecise; She upholds a broader ban on material support for terrorist groups”: David Rosenzweig has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Ruling Sets Off Tug of War Over Private Property”: The New York Times contains this front page article today.

“After Dispute, Judge’s Confirmation Hearings Set to Start Sept. 6”: This article appears today in The New York Times, along with articles headlined “White House Memos Offer Opinions on Supreme Court” and “Roberts Nomination Raises the Issue of the Role of Religious Faith in Public Life.”

In The Los Angeles Times, Maura Reynolds and David G. Savage report that “Roberts’ HearingsSet to Start Sept. 6; As expected, Democrats formally request memos and court filings that the Supreme Court nominee wrote for the solicitor general’s office.”

The Washington Times reports that “Roberts’ Senate hearing set as lawmakers scan records.” And Terence P. Jeffrey has an op-ed entitled “Durbin evolution on decency.”

The Manchester Union Leader reports that “Edwards tells NH he has ‘serious questions’ about Roberts.”

The Arkansas News Bureau reports that “Pryor meets with Supreme Court nominee.”

The Kennebec (Me.) Journal reports that “GOP rallies for Roberts’ confirmation.”

The Colorado Springs Gazette reports that “GOP head asks Springs to help in Roberts vote.”

And one week ago, The Rocky Mountain News published an article headlined “Dobson keeps focus on the fight; Champion of Christian right sets his sights, political clout on battle over courts.”

“Voter registrations of judge, spouse alleged improper”: The Seattle Times today contains an article that begins, “The Evergreen Freedom Foundation has challenged the voter registrations of 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Betty Fletcher and her husband, Robert Fletcher.”

“Remington native first solicitor general”: The Journal and Courier of Remington, Indiana yesterday contained an article that begins, “A Remington native has been chosen Indiana’s first solicitor general, given the task of handling legal cases that pose constitutional challenges to the state. Currently special counsel in the Indiana Attorney General’s Office, Thomas Fisher was named Thursday as solicitor general by Attorney General Steve Carter.”

Fisher, of course, is a longtime reader of “How Appealing” and conducted the interview I republished in October 2004 under the heading “23 Questions for Seventh Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes.”

Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro reports on “The Year Roberts Had Rehnquist’s Ear.”

An article is headlined “Mass. Judge: Denying Jurors a Smoke Doesn’t Change Verdict.”

And in news from California, “Murder Case to Be Retried Over Jury Trip.”

On a bid placed two seconds before the auction ended, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor bobblehead doll sells on eBay for $345.69: The bidding war went down to the wire on this item. Amazing!

“Dems Complain GOP Rushing Roberts Vote”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press provides this report.

Reuters provides an update headlined “No date set yet for Roberts U.S. Senate hearing.”

And last but not least, the White House made the nomination official today.

“Court foes target Breyer’s property; Tactic mirrors bid to take Souter’s home”: The Concord (N.H.) Monitor today contains an article that begins, “If the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire and its allies have their way, someday two stone monuments will stand on U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s Plainfield property.”

In one hour and fifty-five minutes from now: This eBay auction of a Justice Sandra Day O’Connor bobblehead doll will conclude.

Why? Why not? A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today issued a decision ordering the Board of Immigration Appeals to provide the reasons for the BIA’s ruling issued in 1997 that “the forced sterilization or abortion of one spouse is an act of persecution against the other spouse and that, as a result, the spouses of those directly victimized by coercive family planning policies are per se as eligible for asylum as those directly victimized themselves.”

“Roberts Hearing to Start on Sept. 6”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press provides this report.

Federal criminal defendant’s earlier civil lawsuit against U.S. District Judge did not require the judge to recuse himself from presiding over the federal government’s prosecution of the former plaintiff: A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit today issued this decision, addressing a question of first impression in the circuit.

Long hair in prison: A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today issued an opinion that begins:

California prisoner Billy Soza Warsoldier appeals from the district court’s denial of his request for a preliminary injunction in his suit challenging a California Department of Corrections (“CDC”) hair grooming policy, which requires that all male inmates maintain their hair no longer than three inches. Warsoldier refuses to adhere to the grooming policy because of his sincere religious belief that he may cut his hair only upon the death of a loved one. He argues that the policy, and CDC’s refusal to permit a religious exception, violates his right to religious freedom. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and for the reasons set forth below, we reverse the district court’s denial of Warsoldier’s request for a preliminary injunction.

You can access the complete decision at this link.