“Statement of Senator Feinstein on Withdrawal of 9th Circuit Split Provision”: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) issued this statement yesterday.

“Judge rules against Dover school board”: The York (Pa.) Daily Record provides this news update.

The Philadelphia Inquirer provides a news update headlined “Federal judge: Intelligent design unconstitutional.”

And CNN.com reports that “Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’ in science class.”

“The New York Times Legal Aid Society: The newspaper helps a very young pornographer find a lawyer.” Jack Shafer has this press box essay online at Slate.

“Patent Abuse”: Jim Balsillie, chairman and co-CEO of Research In Motion, had this BlackBerry-related op-ed (pass-through link) in yesterday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“9th Circuit remains intact – for now; A proposal to split the appeals court is trimmed from a budget-cutting bill”: This article appears today in The Sacramento Bee.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports today that “Congress drops plan to split Ninth Circuit.”

The Arizona Daily Star reports that “Congress rules out breakup of court.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Plan to split court dropped; Republicans planned to divide 9th circuit.”

“Judge Rules Against ‘Intelligent Design'”: The Associated Press provides this report.

BREAKING NEWS — Pennsylvania federal district court rules that Dover, Pennsylvania’s teaching of intelligent design violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: Today’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania can be accessed here. And I have posted a copy of the court’s ruling here.

The opinion concludes:

To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions.

Earlier in today’s opinion, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III writes:

[W]e do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

In case anyone has difficulty accessing the opinion from the court’s web site, I have posted a copy of the ruling here.

The Toronto Globe and Mail is reporting: Today’s newspaper contains articles headlined “RIM boss says NTP abusing U.S. patent system; Balsillie argues that rival is exploiting system’s ‘burdens’ in BlackBerry dispute” and “Courts will rule on public’s right to criticize city hall; Cases focus on libel suits against citizens accused of defaming municipalities.”

BREAKING NEWS — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit refuses to hold unconstitutional a Ten Commandments display identical to the one recently held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky.: Today’s Sixth Circuit ruling can be accessed at this link. The difference between today’s case and the case the U.S. Supreme Court decided earlier this year, according to the two Sixth Circuit judges who joined in the majority opinion, is: “The Mercer County display has a secular purpose. Unlike McCreary County, there is nothing in the legislative history or implementation that tends to prove a religious purpose. Nor does the display have the effect of endorsing religion. The display is therefore constitutional as a matter of law.”

“When Can Congress Remove Judges?” Law Professors Todd D. Peterson and Saikrishna B. Prakash debate the issue here this week at legalaffairs.org.

On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition“: The broadcast contained segments entitled “Wiretapping and the Efficiency of Court Warrants“; “Legality of Bush Eavesdropping Order Questioned“; and “Decision Expected in Intelligent Design Case.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Workers’ bias suit ends in win, slur; Jurors said a lawyer called them ‘crackers’; The school district was told to pay four white men nearly $3 million”: The Philadelphia Inquirer today contains an article that begins, “Four white men fired by the Philadelphia School District have won a racial-discrimination lawsuit, and a federal jury awarded them nearly $3 million in damages. After Friday’s verdict, Carl E. Singley, a prominent African American lawyer who represented the school district, exchanged words with some members of the all-white jury as they rode a courthouse elevator. He called them ‘crackers,’ four jurors said in interviews.” Sources say that Mr. Singley currently has no articles accepted for and awaiting publication in The Yale Law Journal.

“Yale L.J. Refuses to Revoke Acceptance of Article Despite Racist Statements Made by Author While a Student at Harvard”: This post appears today at “TaxProf Blog.” My earlier coverage is here.

Eleventh Circuit reverses dismissal of lawsuit against Second Circuit judge: Yesterday’s unpublished Eleventh Circuit ruling can be accessed here (via “Abstract Appeal“).

“Hershey suit judges book by its cover”: The Harrisburg Patriot-News today contains an article that begins, “The Hershey Co. is suing publisher Simon & Schuster, saying the cover of a soon-to-be-released book about Milton S. Hershey resembles a Hershey’s chocolate bar.”

“Evolution ruling expected; The federal lawsuit on intelligent design will likely chart the future of science education”: The Philadelphia Inquirer today contains an article that begins, “A decision is expected today in the first-ever federal trial on the teaching of intelligent design – a ruling that will likely have far-reaching impact on the future of science education in the United States.” I will link to the ruling just as soon as it becomes available online.

“Specter will question Alito on legality of NSA spying”: Michael McGough has this article today in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The Gallup Poll reports today that “Public Still Behind Alito; Democrats slightly more negative.”

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports that “Anti-Alito campaign rolls across Arkansas.”

In The Oregonian, columnist David Reinhard has an op-ed entitled “Alito nomination: Sleazy ad ‘Borks’ judge’s position on legality of warrants.”

And in The Albany Times Union, Paul K. McMasters has an op-ed entitled “A more open view of court is in order.”

“Bush bypassed compliant court on wiretapping; Warrants rarely denied”: Charlie Savage has this article today in The Boston Globe.

“Administration Cites War Vote in Spying Case”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

In today’s issue of The Los Angeles Times: Richard B. Schmitt and David G. Savage have a news analysis headlined “Legal Test Was Seen as Hurdle to Spying; Some say the court’s tougher standard of ‘probable cause’ led to the surveillance order.”

In other news, “Audit Says Guam Court Secretly Hired Lobbyist.”

An article reports that “Prisons to Curtail Racial Segregation; State officials will phase in a new policy in which race will be considered along with gang ties and personal histories in assigning housing.”

In local news, “A Public Goodbye for Williams; About 2,000 people turn out to view the body of the killer and writer executed last week despite a high-profile campaign to save his life.”

An article headlined “Alleged Videotaping for Extortion Described” begins, “The creator of the ‘Girls Gone Wild’ video series testified Monday about an alleged shakedown attempt at his Bel-Air mansion, saying that he was ‘scared to death’ when a Los Angeles man broke in and forced him at gunpoint to partially disrobe and pose for a demeaning videotape.”

An editorial entitled “Editor in chief” begins, “One of the perks of being commander in chief is that you get to edit the Constitution, even the Bill of Rights, from time to time. That is in essence the legal justification offered by the Bush administration for its authorization of a secret program to wiretap, without any court order, international communications of individuals within the United States suspected of ties to terrorist groups.”

And Law Professor John C. Yoo has an op-ed entitled “A president can pull the trigger.”

“Rushing to Execute in Texas”: This editorial appears today in The New York Times.

“Actually, I was going to stay in my office tonight and work on my law blog.” That bit of dialogue was spoken by Bob Loblaw, portrayed by actor Scott Baio, on this evening’s episode of FOX’s “Arrested Development.” As a result, tonight the blog “Decision of the Day” is receiving a few more visits than usual. Of course, the “Bob Loblaw’s Blawg” joke was anticipated even before the “Decision of the Day” blog sprung into existence with a post about dirty dancing.

Available online from law.com: Justin Scheck reports that “9th Circuit Split Dropped in Congress.”

Tony Mauro reports that “Alito Speeches Reveal a Warmer, Wittier Nominee.” The article links to the texts of the speeches discussed in the article.

In other news, “High Court Will Hear Mohawk’s Bid to Toss RICO Suit by Employee; Carpet workers claim company hired illegal aliens to drive wages down.”

And Shannon P. Duffy reports that “Dismissal of $4.6 Billion Merck Securities Case Affirmed.”

“RIM Chairman Hails Patent Office Decision”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Research In Motion’s chairman says he’s heartened that the U.S. patent office is moving faster in re-examining patents at the crux of the bitter legal battle over his company’s pioneering BlackBerry wireless e-mail service.”

“Young Killer Is Ruled Competent; Lawyers Acknowledge His Ruse”: The New York Times on Tuesday will contain an article that begins, “A youth convicted in 2001 of stomping a 6-year-old playmate to death was ruled mentally competent on Monday for a hearing to determine whether he is returned to prison, perhaps for life. The ruling followed his lawyers’ acknowledgment that he had faked being suicidal.”

“How Long Does it Take to Litigate a Supreme Court Case?” At the “Crime & Federalism” blog, Mike Cernovich has this post about the counsel fee application in the Michigan interstate wine shipment case. Chances are that the application doesn’t even seek reimbursement for all the wine that had to be consumed in order to properly understand and research the questions presented.

“Alito Opinion Backs Dealers in Ford Fight”: The Associated Press provides this report. My earlier coverage is here.

And Tuesday’s edition of The Hill will report that “Alito allies to campaign nationwide.”

“Yale Law Journal Controversy”: This post appears at the blog “blackprof.com.” Additional information is available at the blog “The YLJ debate.” And the blog “Letters of Marque” has a post titled “Some Comments on what Law Reviews Do.”

In news from New Hampshire: The Associated Press reports that “Lynch to nominate Judge Hicks to state Supreme Court.”

“The Economics of Capital Punishment”: Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner has this new, and quite interesting, post at “The Becker-Posner Blog.” His co-blogger, Professor Gary Becker, responds with a post titled “More on the Economics of Capital Punishment.”

“President Nominates Former Idaho GOP Chair to Ninth Circuit”: This article appears today in the Metropolitan News-Enterprise. My earlier post about the nomination is here.

“Yale Law Students and Faculty Issue Report on Judge Alito’s Record”: “ACSBlog” offers this post. The report of the “Alito Project at the Yale Law School” can be accessed here.

“Past rulings don’t support Bush’s use of war powers”: Today in The Boston Globe, Charlie Savage has an article that begins, “President Bush’s assertion that his powers as commander in chief allowed him to authorize wiretaps on Americans despite a 1978 wiretapping law has little support in past Supreme Court rulings.”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Orin Kerr has a lengthy post titled “Legal Analysis of the NSA Domestic Surveillance Program.”

“Lawmakers to Ask Alito About Spy Views”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press provides this report.

“Cox appoints special prosecutor in Fieger case”: The Detroit Free Press provides a news update that begins, “Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, acting on the recommendation of a group of career county prosecutors, has named a former prosecutor from the Upper Peninsula to take over a criminal investigation of firebrand attorney Geoffrey Fieger. Patrick Shannon, 54, who served 18 years as prosecutor in Chippewa County, said he will start from scratch on the inquiry into whether a series of attack ads in the 2004, paid for anonymously by Fieger, violated the law.”

And The Detroit News provides an update headlined “Cox appoints independent counsel to conduct Fieger investigation.”