The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Prosecutor: Moussaoui’s Lies Led to 9/11“; “Witness Challenged Over Skilling Remark“; and “D.C.-Area Sniper Suspect Gripes to Court.”

On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms the dismissal of a lawsuit seeking redress from the Republic of Poland for the expropriation of real property from Jews in post-war Poland: The 2-1 ruling, dated last Friday but posted online today, can be accessed here. Unlike the typical Second Circuit opinion, in so-called “native” PDF, this file appears to be in scanned PDF; as a result, the document is less legible than usual.

Today’s appellate court filing: Today I am filing this Reply Brief for Appellants in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs-prison conditions case from Bucks County, Pennsylvania that resulted in a $1.2 million jury award in favor of two pretrial detainees who contracted antibiotic-resistant staph infections during their confinements. The opening Brief for Appellants, filed in late December 2005, can be accessed here.

“Slate’s Jurisprudence: Military Recruiters on Campus.” This segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Dahlia Lithwick appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day.”

“Supreme Court Sides With College Military Recruiters”: law.com’s Tony Mauro provides this news update.

“Because the First Amendment would not prevent Congress from directly imposing the Solomon Amendment’s access requirement, the statute does not place an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funds.” At present, the Solomon Amendment allows institutions of higher education that are willing to forfeit federal funding to exclude military recruiters. Might the quoted language from today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which speaks of Congress’s ability constitutionally to impose the access requirement directly, enable Congress to enact a new version of the Solomon Amendment mandating access for military recruiters that institutions of higher education could not refuse even if they were otherwise willing to turn down federal funding? The answer would seem to be yes.

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “S.D. Governor Signs Abortion Ban Into Law“; “Moussaoui Death Penalty Trial Opens“; and “Supreme Court to Hear Inmates’ Appeal.”

On today’s broadcast of the public radio program “Here & Now“: The broadcast contained segments entitled “High Court Upholds Military Recruiting Law” (featuring Law Professor Kent Greenfield) and “Moussaoui Sentencing Begins Today.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Military Recruiting Law Upheld by Supreme Court”: This segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition.”

“Court lets stand ruling for State Farm on parts”: Reuters provides a report that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a challenge to a ruling that overturned a $1.06 billion judgment against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. over the parts used in collision repairs.”

Supreme Court of California rules that a state law requiring an adult who has oral copulation with a minor to register with police as a sex offender is unconstitutional because no such requirement exists for adults who have sexual intercourse with minors: Today’s ruling, by a 6-1 margin, can be accessed here.

“Military Wins at U.S. High Court on Campus Recruiting”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News provides this report.

“Abortion foes split on strategy; As one state ban sets up a test case, some prefer smaller steps that are less divisive”: This article appears today in The Sacramento Bee.

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court Order List and opinion in an argued case: Today’s ruling in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., No. 04-1152, was unanimous. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court. You can access the syllabus here; the Chief Justice’s opinion here; and the oral argument transcript here.

Today’s Order List can be accessed here. The Court granted review in two related cases and consolidated them for an hour of oral argument.

In early coverage, Gina Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Court Backs Campus Military Recruiters“; “Supreme Court Rejects Judicial Ethics Case“; and “Court Sidesteps Grandparents’ Rights Case.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court upholds ‘Solomon Amendment.’”

BREAKING NEWS — “Supreme Court upholds law requiring colleges to forfeit federal money if they refuse to accommodate military recruiters.” The Associated Press provides this news alert.

“D.C.’s Secret Docket: There were 460 criminal cases filed last year; To the public, 111 of them don’t exist.” Legal Times provides this report (free access).

Supreme Court of California is to announce its decision today on whether a state law requiring an adult who has oral copulation with a minor to register with police as a sex offender is unconstitutional because no such requirement exists for adults who have sexual intercourse with minors: According to the court’s announcement, the ruling will be available online at 1 p.m. eastern time today.

The 2-1 ruling of the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District, holding the law unconstitutional, can be accessed here. And in press coverage of that ruling, Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reported that “Appeals court rules on sex offender law.”

“The Trouble With Texas”: Today in National Journal, Stuart Taylor Jr. has an essay that begins, “A dispiriting reality sank in as the Supreme Court worked through two hours of arguments on March 1 about the egregious gerrymander that Tom DeLay helped ram through the Texas Legislature in 2003: The Court has no intention of fixing — and no idea how to fix — the mess that it has made of our politics (with ample help from politicians) over more than four decades.”

“To Cite or Not to Cite to Non-Precedential Opinions”: The new installment of my weekly “On Appeal” column for law.com can be accessed here.

One Life Inside Gitmo: The U.S. government says Detainee 063 has provided invaluable intelligence; His lawyer says that the statements were coerced and that the interrogation log proves it.” This article appears in the March 13, 2006 issue of Time magazine.

“Jurors set to decide Moussaoui’s fate; Trial will determine life term or death”: USA Today contains this article today.

The Washington Times reports today that “Penalty phase jury eyed for Moussaoui.”

And The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports today that “From the bench, judge shows an independent streak,” while yesterday’s newspaper reported that “Penalty phase for Moussaoui starts tomorrow; Prosecutors will try to convince jurors he should receive death.”

“Jurors to Hear Fastow Testify; Enron’s former chief financial officer is expected to face a tough cross-examination”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

And today’s edition of The Houston Chronicle contains articles headlined “Sparks could fly as Fastow gets a turn” and “Fastows have been keeping a low profile; But the family has kept up with normal routines.”

“Detractors of BlackBerry See Trouble Past Patents”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

And today’s issue of USA Today reports that “BlackBerry maker said not permanently damaged; RIM settles patent lawsuit with NTP for $612.5M.”

“The Varying Influence of Clerks”: The brand new installment of Charles Lane’s “Full Court Press” column appears today in The Washington Post, and you can access it here.

“Blawg Review #47”: Available online here, at “Unused and Probably Unusable.”

“You Call That a Knife?” At the “Sepia Mutiny” blog, Dave Sidhu has this post about the Supreme Court of Canada‘s recent decision regarding whether students can be prohibited from bringing Sikh kirpans to school.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune is reporting: Monday’s newspaper will contain an article headlined “Moussaoui still a mystery to FBI tipsters; ‘Am I going to be responsible for a guy being put to death?’ one man wonders.”

And last Friday’s newspaper contained an article headlined “In South Dakota, challenge to abortion ban could be sent to voters; Opponents of the bill awaiting the governor’s signature could try to put it on the ballot before it reaches the courts.”

“Voices Baffled, Brash and Irate in Guantanamo”: This article will appear Monday in The New York Times.

“Jurors set to decide Moussaoui’s fate; Trial expected to take months”: CNN.com provides this report.

“Parental Notice Has Scant Effect in Teen Abortion”: This article will appear in Monday’s edition of The New York Times.

“In Enron Chess Game, Lawyers Weigh Value of One Piece”: Monday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an article that begins, “Do federal prosecutors in the Enron trial need the headache of calling Andrew S. Fastow, the Enron figure some view as the government’s star witness?”

“Reporter: High court shifting.” The Davis Enterprise contains an article that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court is ‘very much a court in transition,’ top legal reporter Nina Totenberg said Friday night at UC Davis.”

“Patent showdown heads to Supreme Court”: PC World Australia provides this preview of MercExchange v. eBay.

“Bones halt plans for tolerance museum; A project promoting harmony is being built on Muslim graves”: Monday’s edition of The Times of London contains this article.

“Justices still running up the public tab; State reimbursed judges $53,473 for expenses in last 6 months”: This article appears today in The Harrisburg Patriot-News.