“Supreme Court coming Monday; Public invited to watch Indiana’s top justices hear appeal at IU East”: This article appears today in The Palladium-Item.

“Mutiny at the Supreme Court: The Roberts Court signals the president that he is not immune from the Constitution.” Nat Hentoff has this essay online today at The Village Voice.

“Supreme Court could redefine legal insanity; Arizona case: The lawyer of a convicted cop killer says state law is overly restrictive toward the mentally ill.” The Associated Press provides this report.

“States Acting to Protect Private Property; Preserving homeowner rights has become a bipartisan goal since the Supreme Court ruled that governments can take land for developers”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Special court rules against justice in property dispute”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A specially appointed Vermont Supreme Court has ruled against one of the court’s regular justices in a long-running property dispute, a decision that could narrow the view of the Green Mountains that Associate Justice John Dooley III has from his South Burlington home.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Vermont at this link.

“Have you ever given aid to a terrorist? New law in Ohio demands declaration.” This article appeared yesterday in The Cincinnati Enquirer.

And The Associated Press reports that “ACLU challenges sign-off against terrorism.”

More information about this new Ohio law can be accessed here.

On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Weekend Edition – Saturday“: The broadcast contained segments entitled “Moussaoui, Sept. 11 and Vengeance” and “Enron Trial: Jeffrey Skilling on the Stand” (RealPlayer required).

The law review article whose name I can’t utter on this PG-rated law blog: Via “Concurring Opinions” comes word of this law review article, which is ominously noted as “under review by SSRN.” In the event that SSRN’s review results in the article’s disappearance, it can also be viewed via this link.

“Justice Stevens, at 86, joins jurist-to-watch list”: McClatchy Newspapers provides an article that begins, “As Justice John Paul Stevens turns 86 this week (Thursday, April 20), he is the latest jurist-to-watch in what has become, during President Bush’s second term, a vulturine pastime for ideological activists: predicting the next vacancy on the Supreme Court.”

“Plea may let U.S. deport Al-Arian; The secret deal would have the former USF professor admit guilt on a conspiracy charge”: This article appears today in The St. Petersburg Times.

And The Tampa Tribune reports today that “Al-Arian To Be Deported.”

The Washington Post is reporting: Today’s newspaper contains articles headlined “In New Orleans, Justice on Trial; Katrina Strains Public Defender’s Office” and “Moussaoui Jury Won’t Hear From Shoe Bomber.”

In news from Virginia: The Washington Post reports today that “Death Row Gives Kaine A Test of Faith, Duty; Governor Faces Dilemma In 1st Clemency Request.”

And The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports today that “Death-row inmate asks for clemency; Kaine receives his first petition as governor, as execution day nears.”

In today’s edition of The New York Times: The newspaper contains articles headlined “Law to Segregate Omaha Schools Divides Nebraska” and “Hurt by Hamas, Americans Sue Banks in U.S.”

And Joe Nocera has an essay entitled “Mr. Skilling, for the Defense” (TimesSelect subscription required).

“Ripples From Law Banning Abortion Spread Through South Dakota”: This article will appear Sunday in The New York Times.

“W.H. Auden 1, ‘The Pristine Words Only Academy’ 0:” Eugene Volokh has this post today at “The Volokh Conspiracy.” My earlier coverage is here.

“Court OKs sex-based grooming standards; 7-4 ruling says casino can require makeup on women”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

Today in The Sacramento Bee, legal affairs writer Claire Cooper reports that “Bar’s makeup policy stands after appeal.”

And The Reno Gazette-Journal reports that “Court drops lawsuit over makeup rule.”

My earlier coverage is here.

“Justices Hand L.A.’s Homeless a Victory; In a case with national import, a federal appeals court rules the LAPD cannot arrest people for sitting, lying or sleeping on skid row sidewalks”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

The Los Angeles Daily News reports today that “Homeless can rest easy; Court of Appeals strikes down no-sleeping ordinance.”

The New York Times reports that “Appeals Court Bars Arrests of Homeless in Los Angeles.”

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “L.A.’s homeless law ruled unconstitutional; Appeals court says lack of shelters gives people no choice.”

And in The Sacramento Bee, legal affairs writer Claire Cooper has an article headlined “Court: L.A. law is unfair to homeless.”

My earlier coverage is here. Elsewhere, Orin Kerr has this post, while “Sentencing Law and Policy” offers these thoughts.

“Once Again, Scalia’s the Talk of the Town; Justice Renders Frank Out-of-Court Opinions on 2000 Presidential Election, ‘Sicilian’ Gesture”: Charles Lane will have this article Saturday in The Washington Post.

Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro reports that “Supreme Court to Consider the Fungibility of Lawyers.”

In other news, “11th Circuit: Court-Ordered Restitution Doesn’t Violate ‘Booker.’”

And the brand new installment of my weekly “On Appeal” column is headlined “Should Congress Mandate Supreme Court TV? Will original understanding go high-definition?”

“Suit against Notre Dame to proceed; Panel says it was dismissed too soon”: This article appears today in The Chicago Tribune. My earlier coverage is here.

“Ten Reasons Why the Ninth Circuit Should be Split”: Ninth Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain last month delivered these remarks to Harvard Law School‘s Federalist Society Chapter.

“Judge rescinds order; ‘shoebomber’ won’t testify in Moussaoui trial”: CNN.com provides this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “Reid Won’t Testify at Moussaoui Trial.”

Today’s order of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia can be viewed at this link. The order comes after Richard C. Reid’s filing today of a motion, currently under seal, that presumably opposed the order to testify in the case.

“Judicial Expansion”: At The Wall Street Journal Online’s “Washington Wire” blog, Jess Bravin has a post that begins, “If you think the Supreme Court is controlling more and more of the country, you’re right — and the other branches of government are letting them get away with it.”

“Appeals Court Slaps L.A. Over Arrests of Homeless”: The Los Angeles Times provides a news update that begins, “Los Angeles’ policy of arresting homeless people for sitting, lying or sleeping on public sidewalks as ‘an unavoidable consequence of being human and homeless without shelter’ violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel and punishment, a federal appeals court ruled today.” My earlier coverage is here.

“The Legal Intelligencer Blog”: Now available online here, and featuring a recent post that begins, “It’s hard not to feel at least a little sympathy for former state Supreme Court Justice Russell Nigro, who was the first sitting justice to be booted from the court in a retention election.”

The Legal Intelligencer, of course, is a Philadelphia-based daily newspaper for lawyers that has published my monthly “Upon Further Review” appellate column since December 2000.

Divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel holds that “the Eighth Amendment prohibits the City from punishing involuntary sitting, lying, or sleeping on public sidewalks that is an unavoidable consequence of being human and homeless without shelter in the City of Los Angeles”: Today’s majority opinion begins, “Six homeless individuals, unable to obtain shelter on the night each was cited or arrested, filed this Eighth Amendment challenge to the enforcement of a City of Los Angeles ordinance that criminalizes sitting, lying, or sleeping on public streets and sidewalks at all times and in all places within Los Angeles’s city limits.” Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote the majority opinion, and she was joined by a Nevada-based Senior U.S. District Judge sitting by designation.

Circuit Judge Pamela Ann Rymer issued a dissenting opinion that begins:

There is no question that homelessness is a serious problem and the plight of the homeless, a cause for serious concern. Yet this does not give us license to expand the narrow limits that, in a “rare type of case,” the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment places on substantive criminal law. The majority sees it differently, concluding that the Eighth Amendment forbids the City of Los Angeles from enforcing an ordinance which makes it unlawful to sit, sleep, or lie on sidewalks. It gets there by cobbling together the views of dissenting and concurring justices, creating a circuit conflict on standing, and overlooking both Supreme Court precedent, and our own, that restrict the substantive component of the Eighth Amendment to crimes not involving an act. I disagree, and therefore dissent, for a number of reasons.

Both the majority and dissenting opinions issued today in typescript format.

“Imagine, for example, a rule that all judges wear face powder, blush, mascara and lipstick while on the bench.” So writes Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, dissenting from today’s en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Jespersen v. Harrah’s Operating Co.

By a vote of 7-4, today the en banc Ninth Circuit reaches the same result as the majority on the earlier three-judge panel in rejecting a Title VII sex stereotyping claim brought by a casino bartender who was fired because she refused to comply with the casino’s grooming policy requiring female bartenders to wear make-up. The concluding paragraph of the majority opinion begins:

We emphasize that we do not preclude, as a matter of law, a claim of sex-stereotyping on the basis of dress or appearance codes. Others may well be filed, and any bases for such claims refined as law in this area evolves. This record, however, is devoid of any basis for permitting this particular claim to go forward, as it is limited to the subjective reaction of a single employee, and there is no evidence of a stereotypical motivation on the part of the employer.

My earlier coverage of the three-judge panel’s ruling in this case can be accessed here.

Street preacher prevails on appeal in First Amendment challenge to the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville’s regulation permitting an outside speaker to appear on campus only five times per semester: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at this link.

Too much law-blogging talent assembled in one room? Now that a possible conflict that could have prevented me from attending and participating in the conference “Bloggership: How Blogs Are Transforming Legal Scholarship” at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society of Harvard Law School has fallen by the wayside, I am really looking forward to being in Cambridge, Massachusetts two weeks from today.

Just as a member of the President’s cabinets skips the State of the Union address each year, Glenn Reynolds of “InstaPundit” fame will be participating via videoconference.

“Hearing Delayed On Court Nominee”: Today in The Hartford Courant, Lynne Tuohy has an article that begins, “The public hearing on the nomination of Associate Justice Peter T. Zarella to become chief justice, originally scheduled for Tuesday, has been canceled with no new date set.”

“Moussaoui Unpredictable on the Stand at Sentencing Trial”: This segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition.”

“Judge says boy can read controversial poem”: The Reno Gazette-Journal today contains an article that begins, “A 14-year-old Reno student can recite a poem containing the words ‘hell’ and ‘damn’ at the state high school poetry finals, a federal judge in Reno ruled Thursday.”

I have uploaded at this link a copy of yesterday’s order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

Is the ruling under review factual or legal in nature? There are many appellate cases in which the standard of review dictates whether the decision on appeal will be affirmed or reversed. Generally speaking, where a trial judge has rendered a decision that is based on a dispute of fact, the standard of review is the more deferential “clearly erroneous” standard, while if the judge has resolved an issue of law, the standard of review is the non-deferential “plenary review” or “de novo” standard.

Today, Sixth Circuit Judge John M. Rogers issued a concurring opinion in an appeal from a tax court ruling in which he observed:

Whether an issue to be determined by the courts is one of fact or law is sometimes pretty simple. But often, especially when the issue can be stated in the form of “Does the item before us fit within the legal definition of x?”, the factual-versus-legal nature of the issue can be perplexing. This is because the seemingly single question really has two different components: “What is the nature of this item?” and “What is the legal meaning of x?” In a case where there is total agreement between the parties as to the nature of the item, the question whether the item is an x is a legal one. In a case where there is total agreement between the parties as to the meaning of x, but a dispute as to the nature of the item, the issue of whether the item is an x is totally factual. Where there is some dispute on each of the two issues, the issue of whether the item is an x is a mixed question of law and fact.

You can access the complete ruling at this link.

Electrocution humor: A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit today issued a decision in which the majority writes, “On the first day of Filiaggi’s trial, the stun belt used to restrain him as he was being transported to court misfired, resulting in what Filiaggi refers to as his ‘electrocution.’ Inasmuch as Filiaggi remains among the living, we will refer to the incident as an electrical shock.”

“On the Stand, Former Enron Chief Has Angry Words for Prosecutors”: The Washington Post contains this article today.

The New York Times reports today that “Jury Hears Indignation of Skilling.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Skilling Is Defiant on Stand; Enron’s ex-chief, ending his testimony, blames the ’01 fall on the media and stock speculators; Cross-examination begins Monday.”

USA Today reports that “Skilling cross-examination up next.”

And in The Houston Chronicle, Mary Flood reports that “Skilling’s demeanor takes a sober turn; Ex-CEO, once animated, blasts prosecutors’ attempts to ‘rewrite history.’”