Available online from law.com: An article reports that “N.Y. High Court Ends Same-Sex Marriage Fight.”

In other news, “Reversal of $145 Billion Punitives Verdict for Fla. Smokers Upheld.”

And Veronica Mullally has an essay entitled “Supreme Court Avoids the Patentable Subject Matter Dilemma — For Now.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered“: The broadcast contained segments entitled “State Can Bar Same-Sex Unions, N.Y. Court Rules” and “Lay’s Death May Lead Court to Toss Case” (RealPlayer required).

“New York Judges Reject Any Right to Gay Marriage”: This article will appear Friday in The New York Times, along with a news analysis headlined “For Gay Rights Movement, a Key Setback.”

Friday’s edition of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution will contain an article headlined “Ga. keeps ban on gay marriage; State justices rule amendment passed in 2004 constitutional.”

The Washington Post on Friday will report that “Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Out in New York, Georgia; Courts Back Man-Woman Couples.”

And Friday’s edition of The Christian Science Monitor will contain an article headlined “Two states say ‘no’ to gay marriage; New York’s highest court says a constitutional right to marry does not exist; Georgia’s upholds a constitutional ban.”

“Lawyer Sues Over Alleged Defamation on Dating Website”: The Legal Intelligencer provides this news update.

And yesterday, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published a related editorial entitled “The perils of dating: Suing is not the answer to an unhappy date.”

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“Laws are not ‘harsh’ or ‘pointless’ in any value-free framework; they seem harsh or pointless by reference to a given judge’s beliefs about how things ought to work, which is why a claim of power to revise ‘harsh’ or ‘pointless’ laws elevates the judicial over the legislative branch and must be resisted.” Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook issued this interesting opinion today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

“This appeal raises the question of whether the Eleventh Amendment prevents a disabled student from suing a state university for damages under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.” A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit today issued an opinion holding that “state sovereign immunity is not a defense to this action.”

Sure sign of a slow news day: As happens once every year, the U.S. Supreme Court has begun docketing cases with the numerical prefix consisting of the final two digits of the year assigned to the upcoming Term, Lyle Denniston of “SCOTUSblog” reports here.

In a related development, one of my many gimlet-eyed readers emails to note that case number 06-1 is the second of two cases mentioned in my apparently memorable post from April 4, 2006 titled “Tea and crackers.”

Jurisprudence essays available online from Slate: Emily Bazelon has an essay entitled “Crazy Law: The Supreme Court beats up on the insanity defense.”

And Peter Scheer has an essay entitled “Take the Fifth: Reporters are looking to the wrong amendment to protect them.”

From the “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up” department: BBC News reports that “Driver who moved road sign jailed; A driver who moved a 40mph road sign to a 30mph zone to try to dodge a speeding ticket has been ordered to spend his weekends behind bars.”

Reuters provides a report headlined “Speeding fine? Just switch the road sign.”

The Telegraph (UK) yesterday published an article headlined “Jail for driver who moved 40mph sign.”

And The Guardian (UK) yesterday published an article headlined “Speed cheat caught on own film.”

From today’s broadcast of C-SPAN‘s “Washington Journal“: “Linda Greenhouse, New York Times, Supreme Court Correspondent talks about the impact of Chief Justice John Roberts, in his first year on the Supreme Court.” You can view the video segment by clicking here (RealPlayer required).

Another big win for Big Tobacco: Bloomberg News provides a report headlined “Florida Top Court Rules Out $145 Bln Tobacco Verdict” that begins, “Philip Morris USA and other cigarette makers don’t have to pay $145 billion to Florida smokers, the state’s top court ruled, refusing to reinstate a punitive-damage award the companies said would bankrupt them.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Fla. High Court Rejects Tobacco Verdict.”

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

“Ga. Top Court Reinstates Gay Marriage Ban”: The Associated Press provides this report.

And The Atlanta Journal-Constitution provides a news update headlined “Gay marriage ban upheld; State Supreme Court reinstates Constitutional amendment.”

Update: The Supreme Court of Georgia‘s opinion is now available at this link.

“Justices Won’t Overturn Stay of Execution”: The Associated Press provides this report.

Access online the History of the Sixth Circuit: Via this link.

“N.Y. Top Court Rules Against Gay Marriage”: The Associated Press provides this report.

And The New York Times provides a news update headlined “N.Y. Court Says Lawmakers Should Consider Gay Marriage.”

“Network Analysis and the Law: Measuring the Legal Importance of Supreme Court Precedents.” A group of authors too numerous for me to identify individually has posted this article (abstract with links for download) online at SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“).

“We hold that the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature.” So begins the plurality opinion announcing today’s ruling of the New York State Court of Appeals, that State’s highest court. The court’s ruling was by a margin of 4-2, with one judge not participating.

“Legal Secretary Can Sue Shapiro Over Her Firing”: The Los Angeles Times today contains an article that begins, “A legal secretary who was fired after she accused well-known Los Angeles attorney Robert Shapiro of overbilling clients can sue his law firm for wrongful termination, a state appeals court has ruled.”

You can access last week’s non-precedential ruling of the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District at this link.

“Afghan Detainee Maintains His Innocence, as Many Do Before the U.S. Review Board; Denials complicate the panel’s decision as to whether a prisoner poses a security threat”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“The Court Hands Congress an Opportunity”: Today in The Washington Post, columnist David S. Broder has an op-ed that begins, “Justice John Paul Stevens, author of the majority opinion in last week’s historic decision on Guantanamo Bay detainee trials, was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1975 by President Gerald R. Ford.”

“Killer gets off death row after N.J. top court’s ruling; Earlier votes to spare man’s life in murder-for-hire were combined”: The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger contains this article today. My earlier coverage is here.

“DA’s office won’t try Mack case”: This article appears today in The Reno Gazette-Journal. Instead of having the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office handle the prosecution, according to the article “The Clark County district attorney staff will prosecute Mack, a wealthy Reno businessman charged with the murder of his estranged wife, Charla, and the attempted murder and battery with a deadly weapon of Family Court Judge Chuck Weller.”

“The Roberts court: Seeing is believing; At the Senate confirmation hearings for Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, critics feared that the glossy image of the two jurists being put forth did not reflect their true leanings; How right the critics were.” Law Professor Jonathan Turley has this op-ed today in USA Today.

In commentary available online at FindLaw: Edward Lazarus has an essay entitled “Assessing the Supreme Court at the Close of Its Current Term: New Justices, Public Critiques, and the Law Clerk Issue.”

And Law Professor Douglas W. Kmiec has an essay entitled “In the Wake of the Supreme Court’s Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Decision, Should We Opt for An International Tribunal for Gitmo Detainees?”