“The Expansion of the ‘Supreme Court Bar'”: Tom Goldstein has this lengthy post at “SCOTUSblog.” In the post, he promises to “follow up tomorrow with a post on the conclusions that [he] reached that will lead to a very substantial change in [his] own practice and that of Goldstein & Howe.”

“State upholds death sentence”: The San Antonio Express-News today contains an article that begins, “Two years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Dallas killer’s trial was tainted by flawed jury instructions, Texas’ highest criminal court declined to throw out the convict’s death sentence on Wednesday, concluding that any problems with the instructions were harmless. To some observers, the ruling set the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals starkly at odds with the nation’s highest court.”

Yesterday’s ruling of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals consists of a majority opinion; a concurring opinion; and a dissenting opinion.

The U.S. Supreme Court‘s ruling in the case, from November 2004, can be accessed here. At the time, Gina Holland of The Associated Press covered the ruling in an article headlined “Texan’s death sentence overturned.”

“Wallace nomination may end truce on Capitol Hill”: The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi today contains an article that begins, “A Capitol Hill truce over judicial nominees may have been shattered with the nomination of Jackson lawyer Michael Wallace to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.”

“Supreme Court: Computer crash insufficient for new trial.” The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A computer crash that erased part of a trial transcript is insufficient reason to order a new trial in a criminal case, a sharply divided Florida Supreme Court decided Thursday.”

Today’s 4-3 ruling of the Supreme Court of Florida can be accessed here.

“High court hears redistricting case; Lawyers representing Hispanics and Democrats say the GOP-drawn Texas districts are unfair”: This article appears today in The St. Petersburg Times.

And The Hill reports today that “Justices eye Texas map.”

My earlier collection of related news coverage is here.

“S.D. Conservatives Seek Roe v. Wade Fight”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Court declines to lift ban on House prayer”: This article appears today in The Journal Gazette of Fort Wayne, Indiana.

The Indianapolis Star reports today that “Bid to lift prayer ban in House fails.”

And The Louisville Courier-Journal reports that “Court won’t block ruling on official prayer in House.”

“The BlackBerry conundrum: Who gets on the ‘white list?’; Closing service could trigger stream of endless disputes.” The Toronto Globe and Mail today contains an article that begins, “As a U.S. federal judge deliberates on whether to order an injunction against BlackBerry wireless e-mail service and devices, he must weigh an ominous warning from Research In Motion Ltd. A shutdown will produce a ‘never-ending’ stream of disputes between the company and its nemesis NTP Inc. over which subscribers should be exempt, RIM has warned.”

“Alito thanks Focus for support; New Supreme Court justice sends letter to group founder James Dobson; A critic says Alito’s letter suggests he is pursuing a right-wing agenda, but other observers disagree”: This article appears today in The Denver Post.

“Supreme Court rules kirpans okay in school”: The Toronto Globe and Mail provides a news update that begins, “The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Sikh students can carry ceremonial daggers to class and that doing so does not pose a undue danger to others in the schools. The top court overturned Thursday morning a Quebec Court of Appeals ruling that had barred the kirpan from schools in the province. The Quebec court had said a limit on religious freedom was reasonable, given the safety concerns from carrying the daggers to school.”

And Canadian Press reports that “Dagger ban overturned; But officials may impose restrictions, top court rules.”

You can access today’s unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada at this link.

“Feinstein blocks nomination of Idaho judge to 9th Circuit”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California announced Wednesday she will block the nomination of an Idaho judge to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals because she contends the seat should go to someone from California.”

“Exclusive: Opponent says justice copied books; Willett says no need for attribution in application for state Supreme Court.” The Dallas Morning News today contains an article that begins, “Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett’s job application to the state included at least half a dozen examples of writing cribbed – without attribution – from two books by conservative legal stalwarts, the Republican’s opponent said Wednesday.” The job application can be accessed at this link (large PDF file).

In today’s edition of The Chicago Tribune: An editorial entitled “The government vs. you” begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last June that local governments may take land from a private owner and give it to another private owner, if it’s done in the name of improving the community.”

And public editor Don Wycliff has an essay headlined “‘Simpsons’ trumps the 1st.”

“Key witness Fastow finally slated to testify”: Mary Flood has this article today in The Houston Chronicle.

USA Today reports today that “Star witness Fastow expected to take stand early next week.”

And The New York Times reports today that “Ex-Enron Official Insists Chief Knew of Wrongdoing.”

“Top court debates Ohio tax break”: This article appears today in The Cleveland Plain Dealer.

The Boston Globe reports today that “Professor leads small group in battle with legal giants.”

The Canton Repository reports that “Supreme Court hears arguments over tax incentives for Ohio plant.”

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that “Court to rule on tax breaks; States’ incentives to firms challenged.”

USA Today reports that “Top court skeptical of tax credit lawsuits.”

And Booth Newspapers report that “Michigan argues to keep tax breaks for business, in Supreme Court case.”

“Judge backs down in rape trial; Woman won’t face jail for refusing to view tape of alleged assault”: The Chicago Tribune contains this article today, along with a profile of the judge headlined “Kennedy’s background as defense attorney.”

And The Chicago Sun-Times today contains an article headlined “Judge: Woman need not view tape.”

“UCI Psychiatrist Bilked by Nigerian E-Mails, Suit Says; Dr. Louis A. Gottschalk lost perhaps $3 million over 10 years in the scam, his son alleges in court document”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Saudi Group Alleges Wiretapping by U.S.; Defunct Charity’s Suit Details Eavesdropping”: The Washington Post contains this front page article today.

“Death-row inmate awaits ruling on execution method”: This article appears today in The Washington Times.

“Prisons Often Shackle Pregnant Inmates in Labor”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

“Justices Express Concern Over Aspects of Some Texas Redistricting”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.

In The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports today that “Justices Hint Texas Redistricting Will Stand; Politics is partisan, they note during oral arguments over Tom DeLay’s map, which benefited Republicans.”

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic and Jim Drinkard report that “Challenge to Texas’ political map meets skepticism at court; Congressional districts redrawn by GOP; justices say politics just part of the process.”

In The Dallas Morning News, Allen Pusey and Todd J. Gillman report that “Justices signal support for most redrawn districts; But many seem open to questions that two areas hurt Hispanic voters.”

In The Houston Chronicle, Patty Reinert reports that “Redistricting’s fate may hinge on whether new map is biased; Though it isn’t clear how the top court will rule, its key centrist voter expresses concern.”

The Austin American-Statesman reports that “High court seems skeptical of redistricting claims; In Democrats’ case, justices focus on racial gerrymandering and compactness of redrawn districts.”

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that “Court seems to favor GOP redistricting arguments.”

In The Chicago Tribune, Naftali Bendavid reports that “Some justices skeptical that redistricting went too far.”

And CNN.com reports that “High court wades into Texas political shootout; Justices seem reluctant to dismiss disputed redistricting plan.”

In Thursday’s edition of The Washington Post: Charles Lane will have an article headlined “High Court Reviews Texas Redistricting; Hearing Focuses on Constitutional Issues.”

And Dana Milbank will have a “Washington Sketch” column headlined “The Justices Look at Some Shapely…Congressional Districts.”

Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro reports that “High Court Patent Ruling a Victory for Big Business.”

In other news, “High Court Zeroes In on Alleged Voting Rights Act Violations in Texas Redistricting Case.”

An article reports that “Federal Judge Raises Alarm Over Vacated Arbitration Awards; 6th Circuit judge says number of vacated awards constitutes a trend counter to that of U.S. Supreme Court.”

And Mike McKee has an article headlined “Solo’s Errant Spell-Check Causes ‘Sea Sponge’ Invasion; Maybe the attorney could have blamed his document’s ‘sea sponge’ invasion on his oceanside locale — or on Spongebob?”

The Dallas Morning News is reporting: Allen Pusey and Todd J. Gillman have an update headlined “Justices signal support for most redrawn districts; But many seem open to questions that two areas hurt Hispanic voters.”

And a separate news update is headlined “Exclusive: Opponent says justice copied books; Willett admits borrowing from Scalia, Bork in application for state Supreme Court.” The article begins, “Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett’s job application to the state included at least half a dozen examples of writing cribbed – without attribution – from two books by conservative legal stalwarts, the Republican’s opponent said Wednesday.”

“Mess With Texas: The Supreme Court has another look at partisan gerrymanders.” Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

“Alito’s Note to Evangelist Is Called Just Thanks”: This article will appear Thursday in The New York Times.

The Colorado Springs Gazette provides a news update headlined “Alito thank-you note to Dobson at center of controversy.”

The Associated Press reports that “Dobson Says Alito Sent Thank-You Note.”

And the organization People For the American Way today issued a press release entitled “Dear Dr. Dobson: Alito Shows Appalling Lack of Judgement.”

“Not a Time to Kill: Why the Supreme Court Should Outlaw Partial Birth Abortion.” Loui Itoh has this op-ed today in The Harvard Crimson.

“Court rules pro-lifers not racketeers”: This article appears today in The Washington Times.

“Supreme Court Hears Texas Redistricting Case”: This segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered.”

The Fifth Circuit‘s ruling today in United States v. Edwin Edwards can now be accessed online: The ruling, which I noted earlier here, can be accessed at this link.

“Abortion foes split on tactics; After years of chipping away at Roe, they weigh S. Dakota’s frontal assault”: Linda Feldmann will have this article Thursday in The Christian Science Monitor.

“Supreme Court skeptical of Democrats’ redistricting case; Justices say drawing legislative maps is always political”: The Austin American-Statesman provides this news update.

Patty Reinert of The Houston Chronicle provides a news update headlined “Justices hear Texas redistricting arguments.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Analysis: Much of ‘DeLay map’ may survive.”

“Justices sound skeptical about tax-incentives case”: Stephen Henderson of Knight Ridder Newspapers provides this report.

“Supreme Court Makes it Harder for Competitors to Sue Over Market Power”: law.com’s Tony Mauro provides this news update.

“I urge President Bush to resolve this impasse by doing the right thing and nominating Judge Smith not for a California seat but for the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Thomas G. Nelson from Idaho.” This passage taken from the text of the prepared statement of Senate Judiciary Committee ranking Democratic member Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) at today’s judicial confirmation hearing (which I previewed here earlier today) appears to overlook that there’s already a nominee for Judge Nelson’s seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.