“Bush blasts NCAA as FSU plans response; The governor says the decision to punish schools with Native American mascots is insulting”: This article appears today in The St. Petersburg Times.

“Court overturns spy verdicts; The convictions of five accused Cuban spies in a Miami trial were thrown out by an appellate court; A retrial is expected”: The Miami Herald contains this article today.

The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports today that “Court discards convictions of 5 Cubans accused of spying.”

The Chicago Tribune reports that “U.S. dealt setback on spies; Appellate court rules 5 Cuban agents were unfairly tried in Miami.”

In The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein reports that “Court Orders New Trial For ‘Cuban Five.’”

And BBC News reports that “Havana hails US Cuban spy retrial; The Cuban government has welcomed a US appeal court decision to retry five Cubans convicted of spying.”

“Judge orders Canada to stop quizzing teen in Guantanamo”: This front page article appears today in The Toronto Globe and Mail.

“Proposition 200 challenge rejected; No one harmed, judges say in rejecting lawsuit”: The Arizona Daily Star contains this article today.

The Arizona Republic reports today that “Judges dismiss lawsuit; Opponents say they’ll consider filing new claim.”

And in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Illegal immigrant law is upheld; Arizona plaintiffs lack standing to sue, appeals court rules.”

“Wyden confident Roberts would shield suicide law; The Oregon senator, fearing a challenge to doctor-assisted suicide, meets with the Supreme Court nominee”: This article appears today in The Oregonian.

The Birmingham News reports today that “Clinic bombing victim opposes Roberts in ad.”

The Los Angeles Times contains an article headlined “Judge Roberts’ View From the Bench; Deciding cases is a lot harder than he thought it would be, the high court nominee told college students in a February speech.”

The Washington Times contains an article headlined “Pro-choice group: Defeat Roberts.”

The Providence Journal reports that “Ads at odds over Roberts nomination; National and local advocacy groups are taking public sides over President Bush’s choice for Supreme Court justice.”

And The Day of New London, Connecticut reports that “Rhode Islanders Stirred To Action On Supreme Court Nomination; Groups for and against Bush selection John Roberts gear up for a fight.”

In commentary, The Mobile Register contains an editorial entitled “Attacks on Roberts badly miss their marks.”

The La Crosse Tribune contains an editorial entitled “Let’s consider what judges and justices actually do.”

And in The Orlando Sentinel, columnist Kathleen Parker has an op-ed entitled “My Supreme Court nominee can beat up your Supreme Court nominee.”

“Guantanamo detainees find fault with lawyers; Inmate frustration breeds mistrust”: Charlie Savage has this article today in The Boston Globe.

“Justice Breyer takes a stand”: The Chicago Sun-Times today contains an article that begins, “What’s wrong with citing rulings by judges in other countries, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer asked attendees at the American Bar Association Convention in Chicago on Tuesday.”

“O’Connor recalls Arizona ranch days”: This article appears today in The Arizona Republic.

“The Bush Administration has mounted a wide-ranging challenge in the Supreme Court to the power of federal judges to stop new anti-abortion laws before they go into effect.” So begins Lyle Denniston’s post titled “Government opposes swift rulings on abortion” online at “SCOTUSblog.”

“NARAL Falsely Accuses Supreme Court Nominee Roberts; Attack ad says he supported an abortion-clinic bomber and excused violence; In fact, Roberts called clinic bombers ‘criminals’ who should be prosecuted fully”: The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, today issued this evaluation of the television ad recently released by NARAL Pro-Choice America.

In somewhat related coverage, Kevin Russell at “The Supreme Court Nomination Blog” hypothesizes here about “the degree to which the views expressed in the Government’s brief in Bray should be attributed to Roberts.” You can view the brief by clicking here.

“Roberts Papers Being Delayed; Bush Aides Screen Pages for Surprises”: Wednesday’s issue of The Washington Post will contain a front page article that begins:

Thrown on the defensive by recent revelations about Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.’s legal work, White House aides are delaying the release of tens of thousands of documents from the Reagan administration to give themselves time to find any new surprises before they are turned into political ammunition by Democrats.

Before Roberts’s July 19 selection by President Bush, there was no comprehensive effort to examine the voluminous paper trail from his previous tours as an important legal and political hand under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, administration officials said.

Wednesday’s issue of The New York Times will contain an article headlined “Nominee Is Pressed About End-of-Life Care” that begins:

Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman whose case provoked Congressional action and a national debate over end-of-life care, became an issue on Tuesday in the Supreme Court confirmation of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. when a Democratic senator pressed Judge Roberts about whether lawmakers should have intervened.

The senator, Ron Wyden of Oregon, said Judge Roberts, while not addressing the Schiavo case specifically, made clear he was displeased with Congress’s effort to force the federal judiciary to overturn a court order withdrawing her feeding tube.

“I asked whether it was constitutional for Congress to intervene in an end-of-life case with a specific remedy,” Mr. Wyden said in a telephone interview after the hourlong meeting. “His answer was, ‘I am concerned with judicial independence. Congress can prescribe standards, but when Congress starts to act like a court and prescribe particular remedies in particular cases, Congress has overstepped its bounds.'”

The answer, which Mr. Wyden said his aides wrote down word-for-word, would seem to put Judge Roberts at odds with leading Republicans in Congress, including the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, and the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, who both led the charge for Congressional intervention in the Schiavo case this spring. Mr. DeLay said at the time that the federal judiciary had “run amok.”

And Wednesday’s issue of Newsday will contain an article headlined “Ads lash out against Roberts; Abortion rights backers start campaign highlighting high court nominee’s arguments in clinic protest case.”

Access online Wal-Mart’s Brief for Appellant filed in the Ninth Circuit in the Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores appeal: I have posted online at this link (1MB PDF file) a copy of the appellate brief, which Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson criticized at yesterday’s oral argument as too harsh toward the trial judge (see news stories collected here). Now you can judge for yourself whether this appellate judge’s widely-reported criticism was deserved.

“Judge-election system works well”: Justice Richard B. Sanders of the Washington State Supreme Court has this op-ed today in The Seattle Times.

“Courts Still at Odds Over Transsexuals’ Civil Rights; 6th Circuit ruling opened door to discrimination suits against employers, but some lower federal courts disagree”: law.com provides this report.

“Left group refine plans on Roberts”: This article will appear Wednesday in The Hill.

“Judge Rules for Walt Disney Directors in Ovitz Case”: The New York Times provides this news update.

The Los Angeles Times provides a news update headlined “Disney Dodges Ovitz Bullet; Delaware judge rules media giant’s directors did not breach their fiduciary duty to shareholders.”

The Associated Press reports that “Judge Sides With Disney Board Over Ovitz.”

Reuters reports that “Judge rules for directors in Ovitz case.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “Disney Directors Absolved of Liability in Ovitz Suit.”

“Appeals Court Upholds Move to Strike Redistricting Proposal”: The Los Angeles Times provides this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “State appeals court keeps redistricting measure off ballot.”

“Breyer urges US attention to foreign law”: This article will appear Wednesday in Financial Times.

“Breaking News: Appellate Court Votes 2-1 to Keep Prop. 77 off the Ballot.” Law Professor Rick Hasen’s blog provides this post, which links to today’s California Court of Appeal ruling.

“9th Circuit refuses to block portion of Arizona immigration law”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“NWLC: John Roberts’ Involvement in Bray Case Raises Many Concerns.” National Women’s Law Center issued this press release today.

The wire services are reporting: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Conservative Group to Oppose John Roberts.”

And Reuters reports that “US abortion-rights groups demand documents on Roberts.”

“PFA Unveils Ad Campaign to Counter NARAL’s Deception; Television Ad Combats Dishonest Attack on Judge Roberts’ Record”: The organization Progress for America issued this press release today.

“Slate’s Jurisprudence: A Lifetime on the Bench.” This segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Dahlia Lithwick appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day.”

“Campus recruiting issue heads to high court; Can universities ban military recruiters in protest of Pentagon gay policy?” Tom Curry, national affairs writer for MSNBC, provides this report.

“Court Justice Worried About Criticism”: Gina Holland of The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said Tuesday that rulings on difficult subjects like gay rights and the death penalty have left courts vulnerable to political attacks that are threatening judicial independence. Breyer urged lawyers to help educate people about court responsibility to be an independent decision-maker.”

When may “a district court require, as a condition for appealing a judgment, that a losing plaintiff in a civil rights case post a Fed. R. App. P. 7 bond that includes the defendant’s anticipated appellate attorney’s fees?” Circuit Judge Ed Carnes today issued this interesting opinion on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The Eleventh Circuit rules against the federal government on appeal in a civil action for conversion and civil theft brought by the United States against attorney F. Lee Bailey: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit at this link.

“U.S. court reverses Cubans’ spying convictions”: Reuters provides this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued today.

The Eleventh Circuit’s per curiam opinion concludes with the following paragraph:

The court is aware that, for many of the same reasons discussed above, the reversal of these convictions will be unpopular and even offensive to many citizens. However, the court is equally mindful that those same citizens cherish and support the freedoms they enjoy in this country that are unavailable to residents of Cuba. One of our most sacred freedoms is the right to be tried fairly in a noncoercive atmosphere. The court is cognizant that its judgment today will be received by those citizens with grave disappointment, but is equally confident of our shared commitment to scrupulously protect our freedoms. The Cuban-American community is a bastion of the traditional values that make America great. Included in those values are the rights of the accused criminal that insure a fair trial. Thus, in the final analysis, we trust that any disappointment with our judgment in this case will be tempered and balanced by the recognition that we are a nation of laws in which every defendant, no matter how unpopular, must be treated fairly. Our Constitution requires no less.

In other coverage, The Miami Herald provides a news update headlined “Convictions of 5 Cuban spies overturned by appellate court; new trial ordered.” And The Associated Press reports that “Cuban Agents to Get New Trial.”

Today’s rulings of note from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: By means of an order issued today in the case captioned Friendly House v. Napolitano, the Ninth Circuit dismisses for lack of any case or controversy a lawsuit brought to challenge Proposition 200, an initiative adopted in November 2004 by Arizona voters and designed to deter illegal aliens from collecting welfare benefits.

And by means of a separate ruling, the Ninth Circuit today issued its decision in Yellow Cab v. Yellow Cab. As had been widely anticipated, the opinion footnotes both Joni Mitchell and Chuck Berry.

“Ruling expected in long-running Disney lawsuit”: Reuters provides this report.

“NBC Drops ‘The Law Firm’ Reality Series”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“7th Circuit gives new life to anti-gay protester’s lawsuit”: Douglas Lee has this analysis online at the First Amendment Center. My earlier coverage of this ruling can be accessed here.

“Is a ‘Domestic Partnership’ the Same as a ‘Marriage’? No, but the California Supreme Court Says A ‘Domestic Partner’ is the Same as a ‘Spouse.'” FindLaw commentator Joanna Grossman has this essay today.

Wal-Mart’s appellate brief criticized as too harsh toward federal district judge: Earlier this morning, I linked here to news coverage of yesterday’s oral argument in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores.

One aspect of the press coverage is worthy of additional discussion. In The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein reports:

Judge Pregerson, 81, also took the highly unusual step of publicly dressing down Mr. Boutrous over the tone of the company’s brief. “It has language in there that’s a little arrogant, that’s a little offensive towards the district judge, talking about the judge being prolix and wordy and long-winded, trampling on Wal-Mart’s due process rights,” Judge Pregerson said. “Do you regard this as an effective way to present written advocacy?”

“That was our hope,” Mr. Boutrous replied.

“You slam the district judge,” Judge Pregerson insisted.

“We didn’t mean any disrespect,” explained Mr. Boutrous, a partner with a Los Angeles–based firm, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. “You can be courteous when you say those things. This is like someone fighting in the streets or alley,” Judge Pregerson said, adding that he believed Wal-Mart owed Judge Jenkins an apology.

In its article, The Contra Costa Times reports:

The three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals scrutinized the arguments on both sides, repeatedly interrupting each attorney. Judge Harry Pregerson, however, directed particularly pointed comments toward Boutrous, critiquing the tone of the written appeal of Jenkins’ ruling.

“It has language in there that’s a little arrogant, it’s a little offensive, about the district judge, about his being … long-winded and trampling on due process rights,” he said. “I think you better apologize to him sometime. … You work for a major law firm, I’m really surprised that you haven’t learned that lesson.”

Boutrous said they “meant no disrespect,” and insisted the company merely feels “very strongly” that its due process rights are being violated.

And in its article, The Los Angeles Times reports:

Two of three judges on a federal appeals panel grilled the retail behemoth’s attorney, bringing up facts harmful to the company’s defense and faulting him for using “arrogant” language in criticizing the trial court judge.

The Ninth Circuit has made the audio of yesterday’s oral argument available online at this link (Windows Media).