“Confirmation of Alito reveals hidden values”: Law Professor Marc M. Harrold has this op-ed today in The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi.

“An Army of Lawyers”: Lisa Hajjar will have this article in the December 26, 2005 issue of The Nation.

“The Letterman Justice: John Roberts is too savvy to keep cameras out of court forever.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Judges cool to ID complaint”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “A San Francisco businessman who wants to fly anonymously heard a federal appeals court panel react skeptically Thursday to his argument that being forced to produce identification before boarding a plane violates his privacy.”

In The New York Sun today, Josh Gerstein reports that “Legality of Airport ID Checks Probed” (pass-through link).

The Oakland Tribune reports that “Case centers on secret ID directive; Requiring identification to board airplane violates rights, court told.” The article begins, “Millionaire John Gilmore did not show photo identification to walk into a federal courthouse Thursday, where his attorney tried to persuade a panel of appellate judges that nobody should need ID to board an airplane,” thus answering the question I previously asked here.

At c|net News.com, Declan McCullagh has an article headlined “Airport ID checks legally enforced?”

The Associated Press reports that “Privacy advocate asks court to expand case about showing ID.”

Wired News reports that “Secret ID Law Goes to Court.” Its preview of the oral argument was headlined “Secret ID Law to Get Hearing.”

And The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette previewed the oral argument yesterday in an article headlined “Millionaire headed to court in fight over ID regulations; John Gilmore can buy just about anything, except an airline ticket.”

“Appeals court reinstates porn case against California company”: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today contains an article that begins, “A federal appeals court has ordered criminal charges reinstated against the owners of a California company that makes violent and graphic pornographic movies.”

And The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports today that “Obscenity case can proceed.”

My earlier coverage is here.

“Lafave plea denied; Marion ruling could mean trial, prison in teacher sex case”: The Ocala Star-Banner contains this article today, along with an article headlined “Case captivates media’s attention; Lawyers, journalists say a double standard exists.”

The St. Petersburg Times reports today that “Lafave deal rejected in Marion; The ruling may jeopardize the former middle school teacher’s plea deal on sex charges in Hillsborough.”

And The Tampa Tribune reports that “Lafave’s Plea Deal Rejected.”

“Congress’ black caucus opposes Alito nomination”: This article appears today in The Washington Times.

The Denver Post today contains an editorial entitled “Abortion issue looms for Alito.”

In The Rochester (N.Y.) Democrat & Chronicle, Peter Durant has an op-ed entitled “Rule out filibustering judicial choices.”

And FindLaw commentator Edward Lazarus has an essay entitled “Why Judge Alito’s View on ‘One Person, One Vote’ May Be Even More Important than His View on Roe v. Wade.”

“Court rules girl not responsible for sex with teacher”: The Associated Press provides this report on a ruling (majority opinion; opinion concurring in part/dissenting in part; dissenting opinion) that the Supreme Court of Washington State issued yesterday.

“Federal court throws out killer’s death sentence; Potential juror unfairly excluded, judges say”: The Seattle Post-Intelligencer today contains an article that begins, “A federal appeals court overturned the death sentence Thursday of a man who had been expected to be the next person executed in Washington.”

“Fighting on the Wrong Front”: Today in The New York Times, Law Professor Peter H. Schuck has an op-ed in which he writes, “in their opposition to the Solomon Amendment, the universities are not only on shaky legal ground, as confirmed by the skeptical questioning they faced from the justices at oral argument, but intellectually inconsistent.”

“Court Voids Ruling Backing Gay Marriage”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “An appellate court yesterday reversed a lower court ruling that would have permitted same-sex marriage in New York City.”

“Ask Supreme Court nominees if they’ll be polite to lawyers; No judge should be an activist when it comes to discourtesy; Yet some act like thugs on the bench”: David Lebedoff will have this op-ed Friday in The Minneapolis Star Tribune.

“Britain’s Top Court Rules Information Gotten by Torture Is Never Admissible Evidence”: Friday’s edition of The New York Times will contain this article.

“Case too complex to get a conviction; A juror says the case against Sami Al-Arian left them overwhelmed; Now prosecutors have to decide whether to try again”: This article appears today in The St. Petersburg Times, along with articles headlined “Trial’s cost: still counting; Trying Al-Arian and his co-defendants probably cost tens of millions; But no one knows yet” and “Verdict a ‘turning point’ for Muslims.” In addition, columnist Howard Troxler has an op-ed entitled “Like it or not, Al-Arian verdict a testament to our system of justice.”

The New York Times today contains an article headlined “Professor in Terror Case May Face Deportation.”

The Los Angeles Times contains a news update headlined “The Patriot Act Can’t Make Up for a Weak Case.”

The Orlando Sentinel reports that “Al-Arian’s fate remains up in the air; Though not convicted on terror charges, he may be deported — or retried.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “A lack of evidence: The outcome of Al-Arian’s trial shows the feds should bring much stronger cases,” while columnist Mike Thomas has an op-ed entitled “Verdict shows worth of what we hold dear.”

The Oracle of the University of South Florida reports that “Al-Arian’s future still unclear; Prosecutors may decide to retry Sami Al-Arian on nine remaining charges.”

And The Palm Beach Post contains an editorial entitled “Trial exposed al-Arian but didn’t convict him.”

“Teacher-student sex plea deal rejected; Woman who pleaded guilty in one county faces trial in another”: CNN.com provides a report that begins, “A judge in Marion County, Florida, on Thursday rejected a proposed plea deal for Debra Lafave, who pleaded guilty in another county to having sex with a 14-year-old student while she was a teacher.”

Available online from law.com: An article reports that “Law Firms Not Liable in Alleged Web Hacking Case; Judge dismisses suit by witness who said work was misappropriated.” My earlier coverage of the ruling is here.

And in other news, “2nd Circuit Clarifies Notice Provision of New York’s Eminent Domain Law.”

“Appeals court reinstates obscenity charges against porn sellers”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“3rd Circuit Reinstates Federal Obscenity Laws”: Shannon P. Duffy of The Legal Intelligencer provides this news update (free access).

“Senate Democrats Request More Alito Info”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press provides a report that begins, ” Senate Democrats on Thursday called for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito to provide them with more information about his time as a federal judge and a government lawyer, citing ‘questions that seem to have incomplete answers.'”

“N.Y. Appeals Court Rejects Gay Marriage”: The Associated Press provides this report on a ruling that the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, issued today.

“Blogging Is the New Black; Sheppard Mullin uses blogging as an innovative marketing tool, gets techie street cred”: law.com’s Law Technology News provides this report.

“RIM and NTP Resume Settlement Talks”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “BlackBerry maker Research in Motion Ltd. has resumed settlement talks with NTP Inc. through a mediator, bolstering hopes for a truce in a patent battle that has threatened the popular BlackBerry e-mail service.”

Reporter for the U.S. Courts Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules reportedly under consideration for federal judgeship: The Minneapolis Star Tribune last month reported that “St. Thomas dean said to be on court list; A onetime clerk for U.S. Justice Antonin Scalia will likely be Bush’s next pick for a federal judgeship.” For what it’s worth, I have been most impressed with Law Professor Patrick J. Schiltz‘ work as reporter for the Appellate Rules Advisory Committee. Coincidentally, both Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Third Circuit Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. are recent former members of the Appellate Rules Advisory Committee.

Access online the text of the revised, prospective-only proposed Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1, which the Judicial Conference of the United States transmitted to the U.S. Supreme Court on November 29, 2005: Newly revised FRAP 32.1 can be viewed at this link. My December 2005 monthly appellate column, to be published next Monday in The Legal Intelligencer, will explain why the Supreme Court should strike from the proposed rule the newly-added prospective-only limitation.

In news from Malta: Reuters reports that “Horses cannot wear diapers, court says.”

And The Times of Malta reports today that “Horse ‘nappy’ ruled illegal.”

“Knight-Ridder distorts Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito’s 15-year record on the US 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals”: The Senate Republican Conference issued this news release yesterday. And Stephen Henderson, one of the co-authors of the article, appeared on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show yesterday (transcript here) to discuss the article and Henderson’s recent C-SPAN appearance (RealPlayer required) concerning the article.

Update: Last night, Knight Ridder issued this response to the Senate Republican Conference’s critique.

“Okla. Supreme Court Backs QB Suspension”: The Associated Press provides this report on a decision that the Supreme Court of Oklahoma issued today.

Pooh copyright agreement upheld; Washington State death sentence overturned: Here are today’s rulings of note from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In an opinion by Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, the court today granted a writ of habeas corpus vacating the death sentence imposed on a “not a nice man” convicted of murder in Washington State because the state trial court had unlawfully dismissed for cause a juror who “expressed no antipathy toward the death penalty.”

And today’s other ruling of note involves a copyright action brought by one of A.A. Milne’s heirs pursuant to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998.

BREAKING NEWS — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reverses dismissal of obscenity prosecution in United States v. Extreme Associates, Inc.: Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith wrote today’s opinion of the court.

The final sentence of the opinion’s opening paragraph states, “Because we conclude that the District Court improperly set aside applicable Supreme Court precedent which has repeatedly upheld federal statutes regulating the distribution of obscenity in the face of both First Amendment and substantive due process attacks, we will reverse the judgment of the District Court.” The district court’s ruling, which the Third Circuit reversed today, can be accessed at this link.

Last month, Salon.com published an article that observed:

While obscenity prosecutions are up, the Justice Department faced a major setback in January, on the day of President Bush’s inauguration. A federal district judge in Pennsylvania dismissed an obscenity case against one porn company, Extreme Associates, which produces the most offensive types of pornography, including scenes that involve violence, urination and simulated rape.

In his decision, Judge Gary Lancaster cited a recent Supreme Court decision, in Lawrence v. Texas, that claimed a Texas ban on consensual sodomy violated the constitutional rights of adults. Lancaster ruled that the same legal reasoning all but nullified the rationale behind many obscenity laws. “After Lawrence,” the judge wrote, “the government can no longer rely on the advancement of a moral code, i.e., preventing consenting adults from entertaining lewd and lascivious thoughts, as a legitimate, let alone compelling, state interest.”

That ruling, if it is upheld on appeal, could be a death knell to the principal legal remedy pornography opponents now have.

As noted above, today the district court’s ruling was not upheld on appeal.

“Foes of split are ignoring weaknesses in 9th Circuit”: Ninth Circuit Judges Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, and Richard C. Tallman, along with U.S. District Judge John M. Roll (D. Ariz.), have this op-ed today in The Arizona Republic.

“Appeals Court to Hear Mumia Abu-Jamal Case”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Blood-Clot Victims Lose Appeal in Case”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Britain’s highest court of appeal, the House of Lords, on Thursday ruled against airline passengers who suffered potentially fatal blood clots linked to air travel, rejecting their efforts to sue the airlines for compensation.”

And Reuters reports that “UK court rejects thrombosis claim against airlines.”

You can access today’s ruling of the House of Lords at this link. The lead opinion begins, “This litigation has raised once again, albeit in a fairly new context, the question as to the scope that should be given to the term ‘accident’ in article 17 of the Warsaw Convention 1929.”

“Chief justice sits out cases on pay raise; Two judges this week asked the high court to reinstate the increase; Ralph J. Cappy had praised the initial action”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer. The newspaper has also posted online a copy of the pleading asking the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to take immediate jurisdiction over the judicial pay raise repeal challenge.

In related commentary, The Allentown Morning Call today contains an editorial entitled “Appeals of pay raise repeal create dilemma for state Supreme Court.”

“Of Essays and Guns”: At “PrawfsBlawg,” Will Baude has a lengthy post that begins, “Via Howard Bashman, I see that David J. Garrow has in the newest issue of the The Green Bag, a review of Jack Balkin, et. al.’s, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said.” My post linking to the review is here.

“Muddy Waters: Alito v. Alito on abortion.” Ryan Lizza will have this TRB essay (pass-through link) in the December 19, 2005 issue of The New Republic.