The Clerk’s Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is relocating to Houston, Texas effective September 14, 2005: An updated announcement can be accessed here. Among other things, the update advises that “All filing deadlines on or after August 24th through September 30th are automatically extended until October 3, 2005, and may be further extended.”

Today’s rulings of note from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: When does a criminal defendant’s prior conviction for possessing a sawed-off shotgun not qualify as a “firearms offense” within the meaning of the federal Sentencing Guidelines? Circuit Judge Michael W. McConnell provides the answer in an opinion you can access here.

And after the Salem City (Utah) Police Department received a hang-up call to 911 and then insisted on visiting the home of the female caller who claimed that her marital dispute had ended, an armed standoff developed when the husband barricaded himself inside the bedroom with lots of guns and ammunition. After the police shot the husband, he and his wife initiated a federal civil rights claim. Its resolution can be found in this opinion issued today.

“Roberts to face spirited hearing in Senate”: James Kuhnhenn of Knight Ridder Newspapers provides this report.

Reuters reports that “Civil rights pioneer to testify at Roberts’ hearing.”

MarketWatch provides a report headlined “No appeal in Roberts’ portfolio; Supreme Court nominee isn’t a well-diversified investor.”

In The Village Voice, Nat Hentoff has an essay entitled “The Real John Roberts: Justice O’Connor ruled Bush can’t get ‘a blank check’ but her successor will give him one.”

At National Review Online, Ronald A. Cass has an essay entitled “Subject to Durbin’s Interpretation: The Constitution, a senator, and the wrong questions.”

Finally, People For the American Way today issued a press release entitled “PFAW Releases Final Pre-Hearing Report on Roberts; Report’s more than 100 pages of detailed analysis of Supreme Court nominee’s record lead to the inescapable conclusion that he should not be confirmed.” You can view the report at this link.

“Supreme Jerk”: That’s the title of Brian Morton’s “Political Animal” column in the current issue of the Baltimore City Paper.

“Sex, lawyers, secrets at heart of sealed legal case”: In June 2004, I first linked here to this article published then in The San Antonio Express-News. Yesterday, that newspaper provided further coverage of the matter in an article headlined “Pair facing extortion indictment.”

“Court KOs Online Game Bypass Program”: The Associated Press provides this report on yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. I first noted the ruling here.

In other coverage, Declan McCullagh of c|net News.Com reports that “Blizzard wins lawsuit on video game hacking.” Corante’s “Copyfight” blog offers a post titled “Courts on DMCA: You Can Repair Products, But You Can’t Improve Them.” And Slashdot has a discussion thread titled “Blizzard/Vivendi 2, bnetd 0.”

“160 law professors urge U.S. Senate to reject Roberts; Say his confirmation threatens civil rights”: Earlier today, I linked here to this article that Michael McGough has today in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The law professors’ letter can be viewed at this link.

The sound of one french fry clapping: C-SPAN has posted online the audio of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit‘s oral argument in Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and you can access it by clicking here (RealPlayer required). The D.C. Circuit’s ruling on the case can be accessed here, and my earlier coverage of that decision is here.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denies rehearing en banc of divided three-judge panel’s decision holding unconstitutional Virginia’s law banning “partial birth” abortion: Today’s order, denying rehearing en banc by a vote of 9-3, can be accessed here. The three-judge panel’s earlier ruling in the case, which remains binding law within the Fourth Circuit, can be accessed at this link, and my coverage of that ruling is here and here.

Four separate opinions accompany today’s order, including an opinion by Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc that begins, “Whatever one’s views on the various issues surrounding abortion, ending the life of an infant at the moment of its birth is a uniquely disturbing act.”

“Humble Fie: Why does John Roberts hate courts so much?” Dahlia Lithwick has this essay online at Slate.

And Bruce Reed’s “The Has-Been” offers a post titled “To Roberts or Not to Roberts: That is the off-the-wall question.”

“Federal Courts Closed by Hurricane Katrina”: The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts issued this press release yesterday. The text of proposed emergency legislation to allow the U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts for the Eastern District of Louisiana to operate in another judicial district can be viewed at this link.

“Hurricane Katrina Recovery Drive; The Justice Center, New Orleans; Not-For-Profit, Indigent Defenders”: As “TalkLeft” noted here yesterday, this organization has issued a call for help.

Also, please join me in recognizing the exceptional efforts of Law Professor Eric Muller in setting up and operating blogs to serve as information clearinghouses for the Tulane Law School community and the Loyola-New Orleans Law School community.

“Do as I Say, Not as I Do: Noah Feldman’s puzzling compromise between religion and secularism.” Today in The Wall Street Journal, Steven I. Weiss has an op-ed (free access) that begins, “If Roy Moore is to be allowed to place a 3,200-pound granite monument in front of a courthouse, why shouldn’t Orthodox Jews be allowed to stick some small strips of plastic on telephone poles?”

“No Justice in That: A liberal group bends the truth about John Roberts.” Roger Clegg has this essay today at National Review Online.

In news from Kansas: The Wichita Eagle reports today that “Abortion foes, backers gear up for court battle.”

The Topeka Capital-Journal reports today that “Sides trade charges over abortion records.”

And The Kansas City Star reports today that “Abortion records case nears court.”

“160 law professors urge U.S. Senate to reject Roberts; Say his confirmation threatens civil rights”: Michael McGough has this article today in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The New York Times reports today that “Anxious Liberal Groups Try to Rally Opposition Against Supreme Court Nominee.”

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic has an article headlined “Roberts’ record vs. O’Connor’s on major questions.” And Richard Willing has an article headlined “Ready for anything, Roberts rose to the top; Meticulous preparation, not self-promotion, made the future Supreme Court nominee stand out, those who know him say; Now he’s in for his biggest test yet: Confirmation.”

The New York Sun reports that “Schumer Readies a Tough Grilling of Judge Roberts.”

The Washington Post contains articles headlined “Specter Likely to Be The Lightning Rod; Senator Has an Agenda for Judicial Hearing” and “Mouths Wide Shut: Presidential Nominees Let Their Records Speak for Themselves.”

And The Washington Times reports that “Roberts made his mark quietly, early at Harvard.”

In commentary, The St. Petersburg Times contains an editorial entitled “Imbalance of power: As a federal appellate judge and associate White House counsel, John Roberts has indicated that he has an expansive view of presidential authority.”

In The Los Angeles Times, Crispin Sartwell has an op-ed entitled “The subtext of the Roberts nomination: Hearings on the Supreme Court candidate should bring into focus the blurry nature of interpreting words.”

In The Washington Times, Gary L. McDowell has an op-ed entitled “The Specter of extortion.”

In The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, columnist Joel Connelly has an op-ed entitled “Roberts’ words on privacy raise chills.”

And FindLaw commentator Vikram David Amar has an essay entitled “Getting Down to Cases: Part Three in a Series on the Kind of Case-Specific Questions the Senate Should Ask John Roberts.”