“Supreme Court Strengthens Protection Against Searches; Objection by One Resident Precludes Warrantless Entry Despite Another’s Permission”: Jess Bravin has this article today (pass-through link) in The Wall Street Journal.

And at WSJ.com’s “Washington Wire” blog, Jess has a related post titled “Supreme Disharmony.”

The New York Times is reporting: Today’s newspaper contains articles headlined “Barring Evidence From Torture Is Considered” and “Britain Upholds School Ban on a Muslim Gown.”

“Inventing a new system”: The Los Angeles Times today contains an editorial which notes that “[t]he Supreme Court is considering two cases this term that could roll back the type of patents granted and allow less punitive remedies when one is violated.”

“New Source Rebuke”: The Washington Post today contains an editorial that begins, “One might hope that after its rebuke last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the Bush administration would reconsider its efforts to rewrite the rules governing power plant emissions.”

“Jury Told Lay Lied on Enron”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

And in The Houston Chronicle, Mary Flood reports today that “Glisan chips away at Lay, Skilling defense.”

“Judge Seeks To Sweeten Netflix Pact By Cutting Fees to Plaintiff Lawyers”: Josh Gerstein has this article today in The New York Sun.

“Case for Moussaoui Execution Seems Bolstered by 2 Witnesses”: Neil A. Lewis has this article today in The New York Times.

The Washington Post today reports that “Prosecution Begins Rebuilding Moussaoui Case; Defendant’s Silence Key to Testimony.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Witness Lists FAA Measures Available for a Pre-9/11 Tip; An agency official is the first to give aviation testimony after a federal attorney nearly derailed the sentencing trial of Zacarias Moussaoui.”

And The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that “Airport official testifies in Moussaoui trial; If they had known of terror threat, ‘we could have reacted,’ he says.”

“Navy rule on prayer ignites a debate”: The Washington Times today contains an article that begins, “A new Navy policy that encourages chaplains to use only ‘nonsectarian’ language outside of divine services has prompted criticism that regulating prayer services violates the chaplains’ First Amendment rights.”

“Religion’s presence already felt in Georgia classrooms”: This article appears today in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

“Impact of Detainee Act Debated in Court; Panel to Decide Whether It Has Jurisdiction Over Bids for Freedom”: The Washington Post contains this article today.

And in The Boston Globe, Charlie Savage reports that “Court weighs detainees’ right to challenge imprisonment; Cases that were filed before rules changed at issue.”

“Some access given in Moussaoui trial; Appeals court allows news reporters to view certain documents”: This article appears today in The Richmond Times-Dispatch. My earlier coverage is here.

“In Florida, ‘Uniform’ Foolishness”: Today in The Washington Post, columnist George F. Will has an op-ed that begins, “What Florida’s teachers unions consider a menace, and what Florida’s Supreme Court considers an affront to the state’s constitution, weighs 105 pounds, smiles shyly, speaks softly and wants to be a nurse.”

“Court rules in favor of Scott Randolph; Split Supreme Court decision settles police search question raised here in 2001”: This article appears today in The Americus (Ga.) Times-Recorder.

Today in The Washington Post, Charles Lane has a front page article headlined “High Court Trims Police Power to Search Homes.”

In The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that “A Combative High Court Limits Searches of Homes; A co-tenant can negate consent, it rules; Chief justice bitingly dissents.”

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic has an article headlined “Court: No police search if one resident says ‘yes,’ other ‘no.’”

In The Houston Chronicle, Patty Reinert reports that “Police home searches require consent by all; In a 5-3 split, new chief justice’s dissent based on domestic abuse is called ‘red herring.’”

And The Washington Times reports that “Divided justices reject searches if consent is split.”

“Roberts Dissent Reveals Strain Beneath Court’s Placid Surface”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.

Two divided three-judge panel rulings of note from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: Under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Congress established rather short time constraints within which federal appellate courts must rule on appeals from orders remanding or refusing to remand class actions to state court. Today a divided three-judge panel holds that the clock doesn’t start ticking until the appellate court exercises its discretion to accept the appeal. You can access today’s ruling, which entirely avoids discussing a related interesting question that I wrote about recently, at this link.

In today’s other ruling of note, a divided three-judge panel holds that the U.S. Supreme Court‘s fairly recent ruling in Crawford v. Washington is not retroactively applicable on habeas corpus to cases that were final when the Crawford decision issued. In so ruling, the majority concludes that Crawford does not constitute a watershed rule of criminal procedure that affects the fundamental fairness and accuracy of a criminal proceeding.

“In Case Involving Disbarred Attorney, High Court Draws ‘Fine Line’ on Police Searches”: law.com provides this report.

“Supreme Court Backs Searches in Some Cases”: Charles Lane of The Washington Post provides this news update.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times provides a news update headlined “Supreme Court Splits in Limiting Police Searches.”

Stephen Henderson of Knight Ridder Newspapers reports that “Supreme Court puts constraints on house searches with co-tenants.”

Bill Rankin of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution provides a news update headlined “Supreme Court rules Ga. home search illegal.”

And at his eponymous blog, Orin Kerr has a post titled “Social Norms and Fourth Amendment Protection: An Initial Comment on Georgia v. Randolph.”

By the way, the U.S. Supreme Court‘s ruling today in Georgia v. Randolph, No. 04-1067, not only contains Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.’s first dissenting opinion since joining the Court, but it also represents the first time that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy provided the fifth vote necessary to create a majority since Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired from the Court. Although Justice Kennedy’s vote was not technically the key swing vote, because the judgment under review could still have been affirmed by an equally divided Court (albeit without any precedential effect), it appears that Justice Kennedy is ready to fill the sometimes dramatic role of crucial swing vote going forward.

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered“: The broadcast contained segments entitled “Supreme Court Adds Limits to Search and Consent” (featuring Nina Totenberg); “New Rule Will Bar Evidence Gained Through Torture“; and “Flight Instructor Testifies About Brush with Hijackers.”

Available online at Slate: Emily Bazelon has a jurisprudence essay entitled “You Have My Body: The Guantanamo detainees try to fight their way into court.”

And Dahlia Lithwick has a jurisprudence essay entitled “Talk Fast: What you won’t say can kill you.”

“Judge Whyte Passed Over for Circuit; Some in IP See Missed Chance For Patent Court”: This article appears today in The Daily Journal of California. According to the article, the next nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will be Law Professor Kimberly A. Moore.

“Supreme Court Hears Deportation Case”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Complaints Against Judges Declined in FY 2005”: The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts issued this news release yesterday. Additional information is available in tables that can be accessed online here and here.

“Lafave case ‘over for good’; When a judge rejects a plea deal for the former teacher, prosecutors say they have no choice but to drop the charges”: This article appears today in The St. Petersburg Times. And columnist Sue Carlton has an essay entitled “Getting back to normal: The Lafave sex scandal placed the victim’s home under siege; How does a mother protect her son from further harm?”

The Tampa Tribune today contains articles headlined “Lafave Case Over” and “Lafave Not So Pretty To Victim’s Father.”

And The Ocala Star-Banner contains articles headlined “Charges dropped against Lafave; Family begged state to cease case after judge refused plea” and “‘Prurient’ media dive onto story.” The newspaper has also posted online the State Attorney’s Nolle Prosequi.

“Court Debates Inmates Filing Federal Suits”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Guantanamo Courts to Reject Torture Statements”: This segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Jess Bravin appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day.”

In exchange for handling all immigration cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit would get three more judges: That means that there would be a total of fifteen vacancies on that federal appellate court after all the current judges resign in protest. You can access the proposed legislation at this link (via “Patently-O: Patent Law Blog“).

Fifth Circuit denies rehearing en banc of decision setting aside criminal defendant’s death sentence because a juror was discovered to be packin’ heat: Today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, accompanied by an explanation from the original three-judge panel, can be accessed here.

My earlier coverage of the Fifth Circuit’s decision setting aside the death sentence appears in a post titled “Gun-toting juror causes Fifth Circuit to set aside Texas death sentence on habeas review” that begins, “It wasn’t that the juror was so pro-death that he was hoping to impose the sentence himself.”

Fourth Circuit holds that news media organizations are entitled to access documentary exhibits admitted into evidence and fully published to the jury at the Zacarias Moussaoui trial: Today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit can be accessed here.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III (M.D. Pa.) discusses at length his Intelligent Design ruling on today’s broadcast of WHYY Radio‘s “Radio Times” program: The audio can be accessed online in both RealPlayer and mp3 formats.

“Court to Decide Future of Detainees’ Suits”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A federal appellate court pressed the Bush administration Wednesday to say how much authority judges have in examining hundreds of claims by detainees challenging the legality of their detentions at Guantanamo Bay.”

Ninth Circuit rejects Alaska Right to Life Committee’s challenges to certain aspects of Alaska’s campaign finance law: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“Chat room insults lead to internet libel victory”: The Times of London today contains an article that begins, “A woman who posted false sexual allegations against a UKIP parliamentary candidate on the internet has become the first person in a British chat room to be successfully sued for libel.”

The newspaper also contains an essay entitled “Verdict casts dark cloud over freedom of speech” by Mark Stephens. The essay begins, ”
Yesterday’s ruling is a dark day for freedom of speech with broad implications. The judge has applied the old-fashioned, anachronistic tenets of libel law to the fast-evolving medium of blogging, which recognises the democratisation of knowledge.”

Elsewhere, The Guardian (UK) provides a news update headlined “Expert warns of more chatroom libel awards.”

“Law lords overturn school uniform ‘jilbab’ ruling”: The Times of London provides a news update that begins, “The law lords today overturned a court ruling that a teenager’s human rights were violated when she was banned from wearing full-length Islamic dress at school.”

Today’s ruling of the House of Lords can be accessed both here and here.

In other press coverage, The Sun (UK) provides a news update headlined “Uniform ruling overturned.”

Bloomberg News reports that “U.K.’s Highest Court Backs School Ban on Muslim Dress.”

And The Associated Press reports that “British Court Rules Against Muslim Girl.”

Lawyers whine over wine fees: The Sacramento Bee today contains an article headlined “Money fight follows wine victory; Winning lawyers in Supreme Court case battle over their fees.”

According to the article, “the dispute has shed light on some of the legal profession’s dark corners: the magic of billable hours, the maneuverings of well-known lawyers and the high price of victory at the Supreme Court.”

“Millionaire Held for Contempt for 10 Years”: The Associated Press provides this report about a Philadelphia-area man who apparently now holds the record for time served in prison for civil contempt.

Back in 2002, then-Third Circuit Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued an opinion on behalf of a three-judge panel in this matter which concluded that “Because the state courts have repeatedly found that Mr. Chadwick has the present ability to comply with the July 1994 state court order, we cannot disturb the state courts’ decision that there is no federal constitutional bar to Mr. Chadwick’s indefinite confinement for civil contempt so long as he retains the ability to comply with the order requiring him to pay over the money at issue.”