“A victory for Mumia: A court rules that Mumia Abu-Jamal can appeal his murder conviction on three separate grounds.” Dave Lindorff provides this report at Salon.com.

“British Court Rules in Torture Case”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Britain’s highest court ruled Thursday that evidence obtained in other countries through torture may not be used in British courts.”

Reuters reports that “Britain’s top court bans ‘torture evidence.’”

BBC News reports that “Lords reject torture evidence use; Secret evidence which might have been obtained by torture cannot be used against terror suspects in UK courts, the law lords have ruled.” A BBC News video report can be viewed here (RealPlayer required).

And The Times of London provides a news update headlined “Law Lords rule against use of torture evidence.”

Today’s ruling of the House of Lords can be accessed here.

“Two New Bomb Threats Delay Court Openings”: The Hartford Courant today contains an article reporting that yesterday was “the fourth straight business day that bomb threats have closed some courthouses in the state.”

“Prop. 77 is back in court; Justices say wording should be mulled, despite its defeat”: This article appears today in The Sacramento Bee.

Law Professor Rick Hasen attended yesterday’s oral argument before the Supreme Court of California, and he has a post titled “Report from Oral Argument in the California Supreme Court in the Prop. 77 case” at his “Election Law” blog.

“Jamming with the Supremes: Getting a glimpse of Roberts’s first abortion test.” Deirdre Fulton has this essay in the current issue of The Boston Phoenix.

“Let public see justice at work; Televised proceedings would raise confidence in legal system”: This editorial appears today in USA Today.

And the newspaper also contains an op-ed by U.S. District Judge Jan E. DuBois entitled “Keep cameras out: Televised trials would intimidate witnesses, affect right to fair trial.”

“Harvard Profs’ Brief Could Still Sway Court; Statutory argument is last, best hope for opponents of military presence on campus”: Daniel J. Hemel has this article today in The Harvard Crimson.

The Daily Pennsylvanian reports today that “Experts say high court likely to uphold law; Case filed by Penn Law professors could depend on Solomon decision.”

The UCLA Daily Bruin reports that “Court may allow recruiters.”

And the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that “Law School Case Pits Gay Rights Against Groups’ Pro-Israel Strategy.”

In commentary, The Los Angeles Times contains an editorial entitled “Flawed legal logic” that remarks, “We are sympathetic to the schools’ impulse to protest the policy, but their constitutional argument is embarrassingly weak.”

In The Chicago Tribune, columnist Steve Chapman has an op-ed entitled “When liberals oppose strong government.”

And The Athens Banner-Herald contains an editorial entitled “Recruitment lawsuit masks real question.”

“Committee Democrat Seeks More on Work Alito Did in the 80’s”: The New York Times contains this article today.

The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger reports that “Alito record shows doubts about televising Supreme Court.”

Online at The Weekly Standard, Joseph Lindsley has an essay entitled “Alito’s College Days: Reading his senior thesis on the Italian Constitutional Court.”

In The Washington Times, David Limbaugh has an op-ed entitled “The Alito memos.”

In The Boston Globe, columnist Joan Vennochi has an op-ed entitled “Democratic doublespeak.”

And in The Salt Lake Tribune, Jeffrey N. Wasserstein yesterday had an op-ed entitled “Judge Alito is no ideologue.”

“Court grills Kansans over death penalty law”: This article appears today in The Wichita Eagle.

The Kansas City Star reports today that “Death penalty law argued in court; Justices review Kansas ruling.”

And The Oregonian reports that “High court questions state ruling on Guzek; U.S. justices suggest Oregon’s court erred in nixing the killer’s sentence over a right to raise ‘residual doubt.’”

“Student Debt Collectible by Social Security”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “School Loans May Bite Into Social Security; The high court rules that the U.S. may take as much as 15% of benefits to pay off federally backed student loans.”

And Michael McGough of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has an article headlined “Supreme Court: Unpaid student loans can be withheld from Social Security.”

“Justices consider Kansas death penalty”: The Kansas City Star provides this news update.

“Specter Predicts Long, Tough Questioning for Alito”: This article will appear Thursday in The Washington Post.

And Reuters reports that “Senate Democrats press for papers on Alito.”

Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro reports that “Roberts Pens First Opinion as Chief Justice.”

And Marcia Coyle has an article headlined “Finding Out Where Banks Are ‘Citizens.’”

“Tortured Rationale: Does Congress really want to fight the war on terror with false confessions?” Emily Bazelon has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Failed case seen as blow to terror war; But many Muslim-Americans see the acquittal of Sami al-Arian as a vindication of US justice”: Warren Richey will have this article Thursday in The Christian Science Monitor. Earlier today, I collected additional coverage here.

“Blank Slate: Emily Bazelon flees from reality.” Edward Whelan has this essay today at National Review Online.

“High court hears arguments on Kansas death penalty”: The Wichita Eagle provides this news update.

“The death penalty and the mercy option”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Roberts Pens First Opinion as Chief Justice”: law.com’s Tony Mauro provides this report.

“Congressional Black Caucus to Oppose Alito”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press provides this report.

Best, as in “most popular”: The 2005 Weblog Awards are now accepting votes (once per day, per computer, per type of web browser) for “Best Law Blog.”

“Because the Court does not appear to have developed a ‘coherent or stable conception of the appropriate role of precedent in constitutional adjudication,’ it is difficult to predict when the Court will rely on stare decisis and when it will depart from it.” That’s the conclusion of a recently-issued Congressional Research Service report titled “The Supreme Court’s Overruling of Constitutional Precedent: An Overview.”

“Split Decision: Republicans want to break up ‘the 9th Circus,’ the San Francisco-based liberal federal appeals court; Whose side are you on?” The current issue of SF Weekly contains an article that asks, “Are you an apologist for the 9th Circuit? Take our quiz and find out!”

“SJC hears child’s right to die case”: The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts contains this article today.

The Boston Globe reports today that “SJC hears plea to keep girl on life support.”

And today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition” contained a segment entitled “Legal Battle Looms over Girl on Life Support” (RealPlayer required).

“Schiavo forms watchdog PAC; The political action committee will inform voters where politicians stand on end of life issues and promote living wills”: This article appears today in The St. Petersburg Times.

“Al-Arian Verdict Deals a Blow To U.S. Anti-Terror Campaign”: Josh Gerstein has this article today in The New York Sun.

The New York Times reports today that “Not Guilty Verdicts in Florida Terror Trial Are Setback for U.S.”

The Washington Post contains a front page article headlined “Fla. Professor Is Acquitted in Case Seen as Patriot Act Test.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Ex-Professor Acquitted in Patriot Act Test Case.”

The Orlando Sentinel reports that “Al-Arian acquitted on 8 terror counts; Trial tests power of Patriot Act after 9-11.”

The St. Petersburg Times today contains articles headlined “8 times, Al-Arian hears ‘Not guilty’; The former USF professor and his co-defendants relieved after long, complicated case; Jurors can’t decide many counts; ‘Evidence making these guys terrorists just wasn’t there’“; “Verdicts elicit mixed reactions on USF campus“; “As jurors debated verdict, tensions, pressure grew“; and “For family, affirmation has a cost; Sami Al-Arian promised his wife in their early days that their lives might be hard; On Tuesday, it seemed worth it.”

The Tampa Tribune contains articles headlined “No Guilty Verdicts In Al-Arian Trial“; “Even With Acquittal, Al-Arian Unlikely To Return To USF“; and “Muslims Express Pride In Justice System.”

And today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition” contained a segment entitled “Jury Partially Acquits Professor in Florida Terror Trial” (RealPlayer required).

“Jurors Might See All 9/11 Victims’ Photos; With Relatives’ Testimony, Moussaoui Prosecutors Want to Describe Lives of 45”: This article appears today in The Washington Post. The article describes a motion that the federal government filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

“Detainee’s Lawyer Says Captors Foment Mistrust”: Neil A. Lewis has this article today in The New York Times. The detainee in question is Salim Ahmed Hamdan, whose case is pending on the merits before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“State high court rejects killer’s bid to practice law”: The Arizona Republic provides a news update that begins, “James Hamm, the convicted murderer who earned a law degree, was denied the right to practice law when the Arizona Supreme Court issued a ruling Wednesday that he had failed to prove he was of good moral character.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Murderer Denied Admission to Bar in Ariz.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Arizona at this link.

“Court Weighs Juries’ Death Penalty Decisions”: The Associated Press provides this news update.

“Marquette suspends dental student for blog comments; Disciplinary panel says he violated conduct code, but ruling is being appealed”: This article appeared yesterday in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The Marquette Tribune yesterday reported that “Student suspended for blog posts; His lawyer says an appeal has been filed.”

And Inside Higher Ed provides a report titled “Dental Pain at Marquette.”

Three-judge Eighth Circuit panel divides over appropriate remedy after jury in federal civil rights suit involving claim for the use of excessive force during pretrial detention awards plaintiff $75,000 in “nominal damages”: The disagreement between the majority and the dissenter in today’s ruling centers around whether the trial court appropriately reduced the award to $1 or whether a new trial should have been granted.

“North Dakota’s narrowly tailored do-not-call statute significantly furthers the state’s interest in residential privacy. The Act does not substantially limit charitable solicitations and is not unconstitutionally overbroad.” A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reaches that conclusion in a decision issued today. Today’s decision overturns a district court ruling that struck-down a portion of North Dakota’s do-not-call statute as a content-based regulation that failed strict scrutiny.

Pulitzer-Prize winning historian David J. Garrow reviews Law Professor Jack M. Balkin‘s new book, “What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: America’s Top Legal Experts Rewrite America’s Most Controversial Decision.” Garrow’s review appears in the Autumn 2005 issue of The Green Bag, and you can access the review online at this link.

In news and commentary from Pennsylvania: The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review today reports that “Judges sue to reinstate pay raises.”

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports today that “Another judge sues over repealed raise.”

And The Philadelphia Daily News today contains an editorial entitled “Judge Dread.”