“Luttig Blocks Bush’s Detainee Dodge: A federal appeals court rebukes the president for evading Supreme Court review.” Jacob Sullum has this essay online today at Reason.

“Court to rule on raises’ legality; Top justices also take case of judge who wants state hikes reinstated”: This article appears today in The Harrisburg Patriot-News.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports today that “Top court will hear pay-raise lawsuits; It will judge both the act increasing salaries, and the one repealing the raises; The issue is mired in politics.”

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that “Pa. Supreme Court to rule on legality of pay raise.”

And The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that “Pay-raise suit on to high court.”

U.S. District Court enters order in state prisoner’s habeas corpus case reopening time to appeal until February 27, 2004, prisoner files notice of appeal on February 26, 2004, and yet today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holds that the appeal came two days too late: You can access today’s Sixth Circuit ruling dismissing the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction at this link.

“Judge voids order against Letterman”: This article appears today in The Santa Fe New Mexican.

Access online the documents pertaining to U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito, Jr. that the National Archives has just released: They are available via this link.

“Jersey appeals panel cites employer in child-porn lawsuit”: The Newark Star-Ledger today contains an article reporting on a decision that the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, issued yesterday. According to the article, “The 31-page decision could potentially be a landmark ruling for corporations about how to handle Internet privacy issues in the workplace. The wide-ranging opinion clearly puts the burden on employers to investigate reports of Internet abuse by workers.”

“Alito sought consensus as chairman of federal rules committee”: Robert Schwaneberg has this article today in The Newark Star-Ledger.

The Trenton Times reports today that “Old-times pal will stump for Alito.”

The Argus Leader reports that “State senator proposes resolution backing Alito; S.D. vote would do nothing, Democrat says.”

In The Los Angeles Times, Dahlia Lithwick has an op-ed entitled “Justice vs. politics.”

And in The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, Bernie Todd Smith and Virginia Hoveman have an op-ed entitled “Alito’s Supreme Court nomination endangers reproductive rights.”

“Jailed for their words: A law passed during World War I pitched Montanans into prison for critical remarks; law students are seeking clemency for them.” This article appears today in The Chicago Tribune.

“Britain Appeals Terror Suspect Citizenship”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Britain has appealed a court decision that would confer citizenship on an Australian terror suspect seeking to change his nationality in hopes of securing his freedom from the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, a Home Office official said Tuesday.”

“Roberts leads court with wit, aggressiveness”: Joan Biskupic has this article today in USA Today.

“High Court Urged to Hear Padilla Case; U.S. Citizen Has Been Held Since 2002, Indicted Last Month on Terrorism Charges”: The Washington Post contains this article today.

“ACLU suit challenges classroom Pledge of Allegiance law”: This article appeared last Friday in The South Florida Sun-Sentinel. And today, that newspaper contains an editorial entitled “Free Speech: A local teen is suing for the right to sit down during the Pledge of Allegiance.”

Available online from law.com: Justin Scheck reports that “Rehiring Falls Under ADA, 9th Circuit Rules.”

And in other news, from California, “Pot Club Lawyers File Motions to Dismiss Over ‘Selective Prosecution.’”

“Defense Lawyers in Terror Cases Plan Challenges Over Spy Efforts”: This article will appear Wednesday in The New York Times.

“Padilla tells Court of ‘manipulation'”: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston provides this post.

“Business Has Nice Words To Say About Supreme Court Nominee”: Investor’s Business Daily provides this report.

Was it Sarah Silverman who said, during the Roast of Pamela Anderson, that Pam’s “true hair color is bald”? Indeed so (QuickTime required; link not safe for work, and one might find Ms. Silverman’s remarks offensive). Yet, according to The Associated Press, “Bald is hair color in Montana.” In any event, this evening law.com offers an AP article headlined “Playmate Gets a Boost From Bush in Supreme Court Fight.”

Reacting to that news, “Wonkette” offers this post.

Crooks likely to remain on Supreme Court of Wisconsin: The Associated Press reports that “State justice remains unopposed; Challengers for Crooks have week to enter election race.”

And The Wisconsin State Journal today contains an editorial entitled “Wanted: Supreme Court candidates.”

“Death-Row Septuagenarian Seeks Clemency”: This segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered.”

“National Archives Opens Additional Samuel Alito Records”: The documents will be made available online tomorrow at 9 a.m. eastern time, according to this press release from the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.

By the way, has anyone figured out why it would irreparably harm the federal government’s ability to obtain frank and honest legal advice if a D.C. Circuit nominee’s Solicitor General files are opened to the press and the public, but not if a U.S. Supreme Court nominee’s Solicitor General files are opened to the press and public? In other words, does the executive branch’s willingness to open otherwise secret files depend on the post to which a judicial nominee has been proposed for, or is there some greater principle at work here that I haven’t yet discerned?

“Secret court modified wiretap requests; Intervention may have led Bush to bypass panel”: This article appeared Saturday in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

“DJ’s lawsuit award isn’t so sweet anymore; Former WYCD host’s lawyer will fight federal judge’s trim of $10.6M verdict to $814,000”: The Detroit News today contains an article that begins, “An ex-country music DJ’s court victory — in which she won $10.6 million after she claimed she was sickened by a fellow radio host’s use of French perfume — no longer smells as sweet.”

News updates available online from The Legal Intelligencer: Asher Hawkins reports that “State High Court to Hear King’s Bench Pay Raise Appeal.”

And Gina Passarella reports that “Lawyers Discuss Their Roles In Intelligent Design Case.”

And the judge’s ruling was replete with coded messages: The Associated Press reports that “Restraining Order Against Letterman Tossed.”

Divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel affirms finding of Americans with Disabilities Act violation against PacBell for refusing to reinstate a service technician who did not disclose on his employment application that he had been found not guilty of attempted murder by reason of insanity: That’ll teach the phone company to only ask prospective employees “Have you ever been convicted of, or are you awaiting trial for a felony or misdemeanor?” You can access today’s Ninth Circuit ruling at this link.

Circuit Judge Consuelo M. Callahan‘s dissenting opinion begins, “As presented to us, this case requires that Pac Bell reinstate as a service technician a person it believes may pose a danger to its customers. I dissent because unless it is determined that Pac Bell’s concern that Josephs is dangerous is unreasonable, Pac Bell should not be required to send him into its customers’ homes.”

The decision is also interesting because it upholds liability on a “regarded as” disabled claim.

Pepsi Free plus seawater equals COGSA claim: Pepsi Free, as its name implies, ought to be free of seawater. Yet a shipment of Pepsi Free concentrate — traveling by boat from Puerto Rico to Elizabeth, New Jersey (also known as Sam Alito country) — became submerged under seawater during the journey. Today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in an opinion by Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi, examines whether the claim brought by Pepsi’s insurer against the shipper was properly dismissed.

“Pa. Supreme Court takes up pay-raise lawsuits”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether the pay raise law that passed last summer — and was repealed last month — was constitutional, and whether state and county judges should get the additional salary anyway.”

And in somewhat related news coverage, The Philadelphia Inquirer on Sunday contained an article headlined “Rendell’s high court pick: A respected jurist; Smart, energetic, not political, associates say; Cynthia Baldwin would replace the ousted Nigro.”

I’m not the only person filing an appellate brief today: Moments ago, Jose Padilla filed in the U.S. Supreme Court this reply brief in support of his petition for writ of certiorari. His petition for writ of certiorari and the federal government’s brief in opposition thereto are also available online.

In news from Canada: The Toronto Globe and Mail today contains a front page article headlined “Liberal resigns over vulgar blog; Executive VP of Ontario wing posted racially charged remarks about candidates.”

The Ottawa Citizen reports today that “Senior Liberal resigns over ‘tasteless’ blog; Party organizer compared NDP’s Olivia Chow to a dog.”

CBC News reports that “Liberal executive resigns after disparaging NDP politicians on blog.”

And Canadian Press reports that “Liberal exec resigns amid blog controversy.”

“Ala. Governor’s Race Is Must-See Politics”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The cast: A Republican incumbent who alienated his base with a proposal to raise taxes. A chief justice who lost his job over his Ten Commandments stand. A former governor under indictment. A lieutenant governor who helped her ex-husband run for governor.”

“Tax Court Reinstates Trial Judge’s Report in Ballard & Kanter“: “TaxProf Blog” provides this post, following up on a decision that the U.S. Supreme Court issued earlier this year.

“If you cherish your rights, this nominee bears questioning”: Today’s edition of USA Today contains an editorial that begins, “When Samuel Alito was a Justice Department lawyer in the 1980s, he wrote that he saw no legal problem with a police officer shooting and killing an unarmed 15-year-old who was fleeing from a $10 burglary.”

In today’s edition of The Boston Globe: Charlie Savage has an article headlined “Foes cite Alito’s stance on liberty; Say he targeted issue key to Roe.”

And Washington Bureau Chief Peter S. Canellos has an essay entitled “Bush’s counsel on spying now under close scrutiny.”

“Justices brave the DeLay show; The U.S. Supreme Court will review cases that revolve around Tom DeLay’s effort to overturn a court-ordered redistricting plan for Texas”: The St. Petersburg Times contains this editorial today.

“Senate Confirms Seven Judges in Waning Hours of Session; But Nomination of Controversial Justice Department Official Is Returned to Bush”: This article appeared Friday in The Metropolitan News-Enterprise.