Suing over a kidney vs. the common-law public policy against recognizing property rights in human corpses: The majority on a divided three-judge Second Circuit panel recognizes that no oddball tort case would be complete without a certification of difficult questions to the New York Court of Appeals. You can access today’s Second Circuit ruling at this link.

“An Unassuming Decision: The Court’s recent decision on religious freedom is excellent.” Law Professor Richard W. Garnett has this essay today at National Review Online.

“Clerk-Off: Are law clerks staffers?” Law Professor Tim Wu has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day“: The broadcast contained segments entitled “Google Case Puts Focus on Web Thumbnail Photos” and “Amid Medical Reluctance, California Delays Execution” (RealPlayer required).

“The fate of BlackBerry service rests in this man’s hands; James Spencer has expressed frustration that RIM and NTP didn’t find a way to settle their patent fight”: The Toronto Globe and Mail today contains an article that begins, “So it all comes down to this: three million BlackBerrys, two companies, one judge and a very big decision. With the stroke of his gavel tomorrow, U.S. District Court Judge James Spencer can switch off most BlackBerrys across the U.S.”

The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported yesterday that “BlackBerry decision nears; A ruling on Friday could shut down the service or levy a financial penalty.”

CNNMoney.com reports that “BlackBerry dispute showdown nears; Upcoming hearing could prove to be turning point in the protracted legal battle.”

And The Associated Press reports that “NTP Accuses RIM of Using Political Clout.”

“Rothstein tapped as Supreme Court nominee”: The Toronto Globe and Mail provides a news update that begins, “Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein of the Federal Court of Appeal has been nominated to fill the vacant seat on Canada’s highest court, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Thursday.”

And The Toronto Star reports that “Rothstein named to top court; New justice faces first-ever questioning by MPs.”

Stacy Stanton is not sexually promiscuous: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has today issued a decision that begins, “Stacy Stanton has appealed the dismissal of her state-law defamation action against Metro Corp., which arises out of the publication of her photograph alongside an article entitled ‘The Mating Habits of the Suburban High School Teenager.'” Today’s ruling reverses the dismissal of Stanton’s lawsuit.

You can access the text of the article, published in the May 2003 issue of Boston magazine, at this link. And in earlier coverage of the case, Privacy Litigation Reporter had an article about the district court’s ruling headlined “Teen Loses Suit Over Use of Photo With Sex Article.”

A pro-Moussaoui jury proves difficult to find: The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Defense: Jury Stacked Against Moussaoui.”

“Boalt Hopefuls Receive Accidental E-mail; Official Erroneously Sends Out Thousands Of Reception Invitations”: This article appears today in The Daily Californian.

“Court will rehear school case; The challenge to Kamehameha Schools’ policy will go before 15 judges of the 9th Circuit Court”: The Honolulu Star-Bulletin contains this article today.

And The Honolulu Advertiser reports today that “Court gives hope to Kamehameha Schools.”

Additional related links are available via this earlier post.

“Peyote charges dropped; Mooney links action to top court’s ruling, vows to resume ceremonies”: This article appears today in The Deseret Morning News.

The Salt Lake Tribune reports today that “Couple agree to end peyote use if feds drop drug charges.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Charges Dropped vs. Couple in Peyote Case.”

“Milberg Weiss Partners to Be Indicted Within Month, Lawyer Says”: Bloomberg News provides a report that begins, “Steven Schulman and David Bershad, partners in New York’s Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, were told by prosecutors that they will be indicted within the next month on charges they participated in a scheme to pay kickbacks to clients, Schulman’s lawyer said.”

“Yoo Says President’s Powers Sufficiently Checked by Congress”: This segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition.”

“State Will Help Shape Fate of Lethal Injection; The Morales case gives California a key role in a national debate over the method’s humaneness”: Henry Weinstein has this article today in The Los Angeles Times. The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “A deadly clarity.”

The New York Times reports today that “Lethal Injection Draws a New National Spotlight.”

The Chicago Tribune reports that “Doctors’ stand renews death penalty debate; Last-minute rejection of role in execution raises ethics questions.”

The Sacramento Bee contains articles headlined “State’s death penalty on hold; The legal wrangling may last most of the year, official says” and “For doctors, the debate goes beyond executions.”

In The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Lethal-injection method on trial across the U.S.”

And The San Jose Mercury News contains an article headlined “Death penalty debate reopened,” along with an editorial entitled “New scrutiny for lethal injection; State must ensure that execution method is not cruel and unusual punishment” and an op-ed by Scott Herhold entitled “Physicians should shun executions.”

“The Anti-Kelo Case: Oregon offers the nation a model for reform.” The Wall Street Journal contains this editorial (free access) today.

“Enron Secretary Defends Her Criticism of Executives”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

And today in The Houston Chronicle, Mary Flood has an article headlined “Unruffled, ex-exec says she followed company line.”

“Supreme Court could shake up Texas political map; If it throws out redistricting, races will get complicated”: Carl P. Leubsdorf has this essay today in The Dallas Morning News.

“Ban on Most Abortions Advances in South Dakota”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

The Washington Post today contains a front page article headlined “S.D. Abortion Bill Takes Aim at ‘Roe’; Senate Ban Does Not Except Rape, Incest.”

The Sioux Falls Argus Leader reports that “Senate OKs abortion ban; Amendments send bill to House to reconcile changes before Rounds’ decision.”

And The Rapid City Journal reports that “Senate passes abortion ban.”

“For Governor, a Supreme Opportunity; Picks Could Swing Court on Death Penalty, Gay Marriage”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “Maryland’s next governor will leave his imprint on the state’s highest court to an extraordinary degree, filling at least three of seven seats and potentially influencing the direction of the state judiciary on the death penalty, gay marriage and other contentious issues.”

“S.C. evidence law faces heat; Several justices fire tough questions over death-row conviction”: Today’s edition of The Charlotte Observer contains an article that begins, “Several justices of the U.S. Supreme Court sounded skeptical Wednesday about an S.C. rule that barred a condemned York County man from introducing evidence pointing to another possible suspect.”

“Lefkow marks sad anniversary; Judge thanks friends and strangers, backs heightened security”: The Chicago Tribune today contains an article that begins, “Nearly a year after her husband and mother were murdered by a man whose claims she had dismissed in court, U.S. District Judge Joan H. Lefkow on Wednesday issued a statement thanking strangers and colleagues for their kindness and reaffirming her desire to heighten security for judges.” The newspaper has posted the text of the statement at this link.

And The Chicago Sun-Times reports today that “Lefkow ‘healing’ a year after husband, mom slain.”

“Debt to Society Is Least of Costs for Ex-Convicts”: In today’s edition of The New York Times, Adam Liptak has an article that begins, “It is increasingly expensive to be a criminal.”

“Justices Curb Postal Service’s Immunity From Lawsuits”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.

Today in The Washington Post, Charles Lane reports that “Justices Allow Personal-Injury Suits Against Postal Service.”

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic has an article headlined “High court: Injured woman can sue Postal Service.”

And in The Philadelphia Inquirer, Stephen Henderson has an article headlined “Court: Post office can be sued.”

“Parsing pain: As he spoke to the Heritage Foundation, you would never have guessed that mild-mannered John Yoo paved the legal road to torture.” Walter Shapiro has this essay online at Salon.com.

“Redistricting question resurrected”: The Pueblo (Colo.) Chieftain today contains an article that begins, “News that the U.S. Supreme Court would hear a Republican Party challenge to the state’s 2003 redistricting ruling drew a venomous response from state Democrats on Tuesday.”

“Justices agree to hear abortion case; Court-watchers eager to see how Alito and Roberts rule”: Charlie Savage has this article today in The Boston Globe.

Today in The Houston Chronicle, Patty Reinert reports that “High court sets stage for ruling on abortion; Bush appointee Alito could cast deciding vote on partial-birth case.”

The Lincoln Journal Star reports that “Supreme Court to hear Nebraska abortion case.”

The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger reports that “Top court to consider U.S. curb on abortions; Debate on ‘partial-birth’ ban is set for fall.”

The Toronto Globe and Mail reports that “U.S. reopens abortion debate; In move decried as ‘dangerous’ for women, top court plans to review partial-birth ban.”

The Australian reports that “US to rule on late-term abortion.”

The Cincinnati Enquirer contains an article headlined “Chabot: Law should stand; Supreme Court will review ban of late-term abortion procedure.”

The Cincinnati Post reports that “Abortion foes look to court.”

And The Bergen (N.J.) Record reports that “Both sides brace for pivotal decision.”

“It’s settled: Measure 37 lives; Oregon justices answer the land-use law’s biggest question, but others remain.” This article appears today in The Oregonian, along with articles headlined “Some farmers see eased restrictions as a way to sell a few acres and stay in business” and “Governor’s race: Challengers fault Kulongoski, but he defends his role.”

And The Salem Statesman Journal today contains articles headlined “High court upholds Measure 37; State and counties face thousands of land-use claims” and “Mixed opinions greet court’s land-use ruling; Residents say that questions remain despite the decision.”

“Supreme Court says Oregon’s top court erred in Guzek case”: The Oregonian provides this news update.

“Why Summary Judgment is Unconstitutional”: Law Professor Suja Thomas has posted this article (abstract with link to download) online at SSRN. The “Legal Theory Blog” describes it as a “very provocative and remarkably persuasive piece.”

“Nation’s eyes are on South Dakota as abortion bill passes senate, 23 to 12”: The Sioux Falls Argus Leader provides this news update.

And The New York Times provides a news update headlined “South Dakota Approves Bill Outlawing Nearly All Abortions.”

“Appeals Court to Rehear Admissions Policy Challenge; 9th Circuit grants Kamehameha Schools’ petition for en banc review”: Kamehameha Schools issued this statement today regarding the news I earlier noted here.

Second Circuit holds that United Air Line’s $25 million “Property Terrorism & Sabotage” insurance policy does not cover the airline’s lost gross earnings attributable to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, other than those that may have resulted from the destruction of its ticket office in the World Trade Center in New York: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

“There is little caselaw addressing the issue whether the RFRA applies to an action by a private party seeking relief under a federal statute against another private party who claims that the federal statute substantially burdens his or her exercise of religion.” The majority on a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today issued an interesting decision. The majority concludes that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 may preclude a minister’s federal age discrimination claim against his church, thereby eliminating any need for the Second Circuit to consider whether to adopt the controversial “ministerial exception” to the ADEA. But the majority stops short of reaching a definitive holding regarding RFRA’s impact on the ADEA, leaving the question to be addressed in the first instance on remand.

You can access the majority opinion here and the dissenting opinion here.

“South Dakota to Vote on Far-Reaching Abortion Ban”: This segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered.”

The Associated Press is reporting: An article reports that “Federal Appeals Court Rejects N.J. Rig Ban.” My earlier coverage is here.

And in other news, “S.D. Senate Bill to Ban Most Abortions” and “Judge Adds to Moussaoui Jury Pool.”