In Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times: Tomorrow’s newspaper will contain an article headlined “’85 Document Opens Window to Alito Views.”

And Linda Greenhouse will report that “Parents Carry Burden of Proof in School Cases, Court Rules.”

“Alito rejected Constitutional right to abortion, ’85 document shows”: Jan Crawford Greenburg will have this article Tuesday in The Chicago Tribune.

In Tuesday’s edition of Financial Times, Patti Waldmeir reports that “Liberals angry over Alito’s anti-abortion past.”

The Hill on Tuesday will contain an article headlined “GOP focus on war powers” that begins, “Some Republican senators say they will use the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito to stake out the limits of President Bush’s power to conduct the war on terrorism as public concern over the administration’s handling of the war is growing and congressional leaders are being criticized for lack of oversight.”

And online at The Village Voice, James Ridgeway has an essay entitled “Alito Abortion Letter Appeals to the Right; Democrats may fret over Supreme Court pick, but they’re not the target audience.”

Available online at Slate: Dahlia Lithwick has a jurisprudence essay entitled “Three-Quarter Truths: The sloppy mischaracterizations of Alito’s abortion decisions.”

And Emily Bazelon has a jurisprudence essay entitled “Senate Demerit: Lindsey Graham gets the law of detention wrong.”

“Senators Reach Gitmo Detainees Compromise”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A bipartisan group of senators reached a compromise Monday that would allow detainees at Guantanamo Bay to appeal the rulings of military tribunals to the federal courts.”

In Tuesday’s edition of The Washington Post: Front page articles will carry the headline “No Right to Abortion, Alito Argued in 1985; Reagan-Era Papers Show Staunch Conservatism” and “In Special-Ed Case, Court Backs Montgomery Schools; Parents Challenging Plans Have Burden of Proof.”

And Charles Lane will report that “Supreme Court to Review a Pa. Prison Policy That Alito Backed in Dissent.”

“Man talks about his pledge lawsuit”: This article appeared yesterday in The Oklahoman.

And The Associated Press reports that “Atheist Plans Lawsuit Challenging Motto on U.S. Currency.”

“Fla. Federal Judges Slammed for Secret Docketing; Judges have been reprimanded by 11th Circuit for hiding cases — but is the practice continuing?” law.com provides this report.

“BC Law hosts Solomon conference; Scholars evaluate case that challenges military recruiting policy”: Today’s edition of The Heights, the student newspaper of Boston College, contains this article (free registration required).

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered“: The broadcast contained segments entitled “Alito Wrote Abortion Isn’t a Protected Right” and “Court: Parents Have Burden of Proof in Special Ed Cases.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Alito Dissent Resonates in Supreme Court Case”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.

“Backlash to ruling on eminent domain”: This front page article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

A3G’s last post at “Underneath Their Robes”? Over at the “Greedy Clerks” board, “Pre-Judged” has a post that states:

Surprising, yes. Disappointing, perhaps. Creepy, no. But, apparently all the attention has apparently forced A3G off line. http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2005/11/this_blog_has_b.html

If anyone can email to me the text of the referenced post, which doesn’t appear to have been picked up by Bloglines but which should still remain in your web browser’s cache if you viewed it before “UTR” went offline, I’d be most appreciative.

Update: According to a reader, “The text of A3G’s final post was simply ‘This blog has been taken offline.’ It was up for less than an hour before the password prompt replaced it. A sad day in the blawgosphere if you ask me.” Indeed.

Get me some of that Google cache: A reader emails to note that the “Underneath Their Robes” site now appears to be “password protected.” But by clicking “cancel” on the password prompt for the Goolge cached page, you can access the site sans today’s interesting post. Update: The very same reader helpfully follows-up that today’s post can still be accessed at this link via Bloglines.

“Judge Alito as an Opponent of One Person, One Vote?” Law Professor Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law” blog.

“‘Nutty 9th’ Circuit Court could be bound for breakup”: This article appears today in The News Tribune of Tacoma, Washington.

Only an “h” away from being called nice: At “Outside the Beltway,” James Joyner has a post titled “Andrew Sullivan Blog Moving to TIME” in which he writes, “Quite a few popular bloggers, including niche bloggers such as Howard Bashman, have gone in-house.”

“Under Whose Robes?” The blog “Wonkette” offers these thoughts.

The U.S. Constitution may contain no express mention of a right to abortion, but the Bible contains no express prohibition: Or so said The New York Times, in support of the latter point, in a Week in Review article published yesterday headlined “On Abortion, It’s the Bible of Ambiguity.” And a related graphic accompanying the article is titled “Three Passages, Two Interpretations, One Controversy.”

“Alito’s Opposition to Abortion Revealed in Job Application”: The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.

“Samuel Alito Newly Released Documents”: Available here from the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library.

On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day“: The broadcast contained segments entitled “Report: Alito Wrote Abortion Not Protected Right“; “Gitmo Diaries: Life Inside the U.S. Prison in Cuba“; and “Mulling the Limits of Freedom of Speech in Churches” (“TaxProf Blog” provides additional coverage). RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

The Associated Press is reporting: Jesse J. Holland has an article headlined “Documents Reveal Alito’s Abortion View.”

And in other news, “Judges in S.D. May Lose Immunity.” The article links to a website operated by supporters of the change.

Following Gonzales v. Raich, unanimous three-judge Fourth Circuit panel rejects argument “that Congress’s Commerce Clause authority does not extend to his private, intrastate production and possession of child pornography”: Today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit can be accessed at this link.

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library has posted online the document that is the subject of today’s article headlined “Alito rejected abortion as a right” in The Washington Times: See pages 15 and 16 of this PDF file. Additional documents that the Reagan Library released today, and made available online, pertaining to U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito, Jr. can be accessed via this link.

“Dude Blogs Like a Lady”: This post — asking the important questions “What is driving this conservative Yalie cyber-transvestitism? Is it getting to the point that a conservative woman can’t blog without being suspected of being a middle-aged man? And what does this mean for our own bloggers, ‘Rebecca,’ ‘Nicole,’ and ‘Irina’?” — appears today at the “Yale Law Federalist Society” blog.

“US court nominee Alito earlier opposed abortion”: Thomas Ferraro of Reuters provides this report.

“A Split Could Create a More Liberal Court; GOP May Do Better By Focusing on 9th Circuit Appointments”: Lawrence Hurley has this article today in The Daily Journal of California.

One week ago today, Hurley had an article headlined “Court Nominee is Well-Versed on Guidelines; Alito Could Shape the Way Justices Approach Sentencing Reform.”

Finally, back on November 3, 2005, Hurley had a very interesting article headlined “Spotlight on Congressional Authority: Senators Prepare to Pepper Alito With Questions on High Court’s Disrespect.”

“Article III Groupie: Under Her Robe.” The blog “Underneath Their Robes” features this new post today. It also answers a question I didn’t think appropriate to ask, namely whether anyone has a photo of David B. Lat.

“Sandra Day O’Connor: A new look at the Supreme Court’s enigmatic ‘controlling force.'” Online at Slate, Cliff Sloan reviews Joan Buskupic’s new book, “Sandra Day O’Connor: How the First Woman on the Supreme Court Became Its Most Influential Justice.”

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court Order List and opinion in an argued case: Today’s Order List can be viewed at this link. The Court granted review in two cases and asked for the views of the Solicitor General in an additional case.

The Court issued one opinion today in an argued case. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court in Schaffer v. Weast, No. 04-698. Justice John Paul Stevens joined in the majority opinion and issued a separate concurrence. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer each issued dissenting opinions. The Chief Justice did not participate.

And in Maryland v. Blake, No. 04-373, a case argued on November 1, 2005, the Court unanimously dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. The question on which the Court had granted review can be viewed at this link.

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court rules against parents, denies felons’ vote.”

In early coverage, Gina Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Justices to Hear Inmate Case for News.” The case arises from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where Circuit Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. dissented from the ruling. Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times all but predicted this grant of cert. on November 2d in an article headlined “Supreme Court Could Hear an Alito Case.” The case was also mentioned more recently in an article published in The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review under the headline “Alito favors authority” and in David L. Hudson Jr.’s essay for the First Amendment Center entitled “Alito has history of rejecting prisoner First Amendment claims.”

In other coverage, The AP’s Gina Holland reports that “Court Sidesteps ‘In God We Trust’ Dispute.” The AP also reports that “Court Rules Against Special Ed. Parents” and “Court Dismisses Police Questioning Case.” And James Vicini of Reuters has articles headlined “Court to review restrictions on inmates” and “Court lets stand law denying felons a vote.”

“Pot-sale case puts focus on mandatory sentences; For a first offense, a Utahn got 55 years in prison; A Circuit Court appeal says that’s unconstitutional”: This article appears today in The Denver Post.

And The Salt Lake Tribune reports today that “Appeal of pot dealer’s 55-year prison term to be heard Tuesday; His prosecutors say it’s fair, but many on both sides say the punishment is unjust.”

The blog “Sentencing Law and Policy” offers more in a post titled “Tenth Circuit argument in Angelos mandatory minimum case.”

Who is David Lat? This morning’s big news — other than that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito, Jr. once wrote “I personally believe very strongly” that “the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion” — is that David Lat is the man trying to be a woman trying to be a man trying to be a woman who writes the wonderful blog “Underneath Their Robes.”

Now that the secret is out, new questions arise that I will group into three categories:

1. Who is David Lat? With whom did he have a judicial clerkship? What sort of work does he do at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Newark, New Jersey? And what else is known about him? [Lots of answers to this first category of questions can be found in the updates, below.]

2. Why did he decide to reveal his identity now? Was the decision purely voluntary, or was he about to be outed?

3. And, finally, for how much longer will he be working for the U.S. Department of Justice, and will the decision to leave be his or that of his employer?

Readers who’d like to respond to any or all of these questions are invited to email me at [email protected].

Update at 9:00 a.m.: A reader emails that searching “David B. Lat” on Google reveals that Mr. Lat clerked for Ninth Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain. And, as is often the case with Google, the search also reveals much more, including this archive of his writings for The Harvard Crimson.

Update at 9:10 a.m.: Another reader emails, “The NJ Lawyer’s Diary lists David Lat as an assistant United States Attorney in the D.N.J., admitted in 2000 to the New Jersey Bar (he may have been admitted elsewhere before or after, but that isn’t counted in the N.J. Lawyer’s Diary). He is listed as one of the four attorneys in the Appellate Division of that office.”

Update at 9:15 a.m.: Demonstrating his basketball prowess, Mr. Lat won Harvard’s Hoopes Prize for Outstanding Senior Theses. And his first brush with blogging fame came in 1998 when his Yale Law Journal note was published in the same volume as an article co-written by Eugene Volokh.

Update at 9:55 a.m.: At “Crescat Sententia,” which published a 20 questions interview with A3G, Will Baude writes: “The rumor that Lat (a YLS grad) was Article III Groupie has bumped around the law school for a while, but others resolutely insisted that A3G was really Judge Kozinski.”

Update at 10:20 a.m.: At “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Orin Kerr has a post titled “Article III Groupie Comes Out of the Closet.”

“Thomas blasts confirmation process; In visit to UA, Supreme Court justice participates in Q&A”: This article appears today in The Crimson White. And last Friday, the newspaper previewed the visit in an article headlined “Supreme Court justice to speak today; Thomas will address law school at 2 p.m.”

“Blawg Review #32”: Available here today at “JAG Central.”

BREAKING NEWS — “In real life, A3G is a thirty-year-old Newark-based assistant U.S. attorney named David Lat.” Jeffrey Toobin has this Talk of the Town essay in the November 21, 2005 issue of The New Yorker. Toobin’s revelation confirms what I gleaned from an email that I received long ago from the author of the blog “Underneath Their Robes,” sent from an IP address belonging to the U.S. Department of Justice.