“U-M law professor, alumnus to give U.S. Supreme Court arguments”: The University of Michigan has issued a press release that begins, “University of Michigan law professor Richard D. Friedman and alumnus Jeffrey L. Fisher will appear before the United States Supreme Court on March 20 in two separate cases involving the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.”

“Why Do So Few Women Reach the Top of Big Law Firms?” Sunday’s edition of The New York Times will contain this article. And a related graphic is here.

“Moussaoui Prosecutors Get a Break; Judge to Allow Testimony From Untainted Witnesses”: This front page article appears today in The Washington Post.

Today in The New York Times, Neil A. Lewis reports that “Judge Gives Prosecutors New Chance in Terror Case.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “9/11 Case Prosecutors Granted a Reprieve.”

The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that “Judge modifies ruling in Moussaoui trial; Compromise allows prosecutors to call an aviation witness.”

The Washington Times reports that “Moussaoui trial opened to ‘untainted’ witnesses.”

And The Sacramento Bee reports that “Ruling keeps Moussaoui trial alive.”

The Los Angeles Times is reporting: Today’s newspaper contains articles headlined “Court Rejects EPA’s Loosening of Air Rule” and “Man Given Life Term for Shooting Lawyer.”

“Bill would shield divorce details; The measure, touted as a defense against identity theft, helps billionaire, foes say”: The Sacramento Bee today contains an article that begins, “First Amendment advocates are gearing up to fight a new version of a bill that would limit access to divorce records, a move they say would erode the public’s ability to monitor judges and caters to one influential constituent: billionaire supermarket baron Ron Burkle.”

“In Enron Trial, Witnesses’ Quirks And Stamina Are on the Stand”: The Washington Post contains this article today.

“Court Reverses Death Sentence of L.A. Man”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

And The Sacramento Bee reports today that “Ruling overturns a death penalty.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“Appeals Court Orders Release of Sri Lankan Asylum Seeker”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “A federal appeals court yesterday ordered the release of a Sri Lankan asylum seeker the government has detained in San Diego County since October 2001 on the suspicion that he once belonged to a terrorist organization.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

The Tennessean is reporting: Today’s newspaper contains articles headlined “‘Choose Life’ plate upheld as free speech; Court says Tennessee has 1st Amendment right, too“; “Brentwood Academy didn’t err, ruling states; Appeals court finds athletic recruiting rules weren’t violated“; and “Court takes gay-marriage issue; ACLU continues fight to remove proposed amendment from ballot.”

“Searching for Google: The Justice Department badly defends a bad law.” This editorial appears online today at OpinionJournal. Earlier today, I collected coverage of the court’s written ruling, issued yesterday, at this link.

“Caught in Post-Adoption Trap, Unwed Fathers Fight for Rights”: Sunday’s edition of The New York Times will contain this article.

Who are you calling a “nerd”? It’s so rare that the U.S. Supreme Court unintentionally makes a “funny” that you must take your errors as you find them.

Anyhow, the Court’s “Hearing List” for the oral argument session starting Monday states, for the case of eBay Inc., et al. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., No. 05–130, that Carter G. Phillips is counsel for “petitionerd.”

In Phillips’s defense, just because the case involves high technology and patent law doesn’t necessarily make him a “nerd.” More likely, this is the Court’s way of getting back at eBay for all the Supreme Court Justice bobblehead doll auctions occurring at that web site.

“U.S. Is Denied Google Queries; Privacy activists hail a federal judge’s ruling; But he orders the search engine to reveal some information about websites in its database”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports today that “Google must divulge data; Judge cuts amount of info company has to give feds.”

And Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News provides an article headlined “Release data, judge rules; But broad request rejected.”

Via the “Official Google Blog,” you can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California at this link.