“As Populations Swell, Prisons Rethink Supermax”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered.”

“Top court upholds man’s DUI conviction; Traffic signs’ legality at issue in Bowling Green case”: This article appears today in The Toledo Blade.

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Ohio at this link. And the court’s press release announcing the decision is entitled “Officer’s Observation of Violation of Non-Approved Traffic Sign Can Be Basis for Valid Traffic Stop.”

“Lesbian’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ challenge dismissed; ACLU plans to appeal ruling on 19-year Air Force veteran”: The Associated Press provides this report from Washington State.

I have posted at this link yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. And you can view at this link the complaint that initiated the lawsuit.

“For gay-marriage backers, rulings portend long road; In New York and Washington State this month, justices point to state legislatures to decide the issue – a lengthier process”: Warren Richey will have this article Friday in The Christian Science Monitor.

In today’s edition of USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Washington state upholds gay-marriage ban.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Washington Court Upholds Gay-Marriage Ban; In a 5-4 ruling, the state Legislature’s 1998 ban is upheld; But three judges in the majority call on lawmakers to revisit the issue and its effects.”

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Washington’s top court bars gay marriage; State Constitution grants no such right — but Legislature could, justices say.”

The Washington Times reports that “Court refuses to define marriage.”

The Seattle Times contains articles headlined “Supreme Court upholds state gay-marriage ban“; “Nine justices, six opinions, no consensus“; and “Emotions run high after court’s decision.” In addition, an editorial is entitled “A missed opportunity on state Supreme Court.” And columnist Danny Westneat has an op-ed entitled “Bizarre rationale for bias.”

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer contains articles headlined “No wedding bells for state’s gay couples; Court upholds ban on same-sex marriage“; “Advocates gear up for the next round on gay marriage“; “Decision opens a door for Democrats in Legislature“; “Hawaii ‘victory’ prompted ban efforts“; and “Anger, disappointment — and hope — on Capitol Hill.” In addition, an editorial is entitled “Supreme Court: I do’s to do.” Glen Lavy has an op-ed entitled “The pro-legalization agenda is grounded on flawed premise.” And Lisa M. Stone and Patricia Novotny have an op-ed entitled “Ruling doesn’t respect equality.”

The Olympian of Olympia, Washington contains articles headlined “Court upholds gay marriage ban“; “What’s next: Ruling doesn’t end political debate“; and “Decision puts couples at odds with state.”

Finally, The News Tribune of Tacoma, Washington reports that “Gay marriage ban belongs to legislators, justices say; In a 5-4 decision, the state Supreme Court upholds lawmakers’ right to ban same-sex marriage; Bills on both sides of the issue look likely for next year.” And columnist Peter Callaghan has an op-ed entitled “Like all the rest of us, justices get passionate.”

“Court Wants More Guantanamo Arguments”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A federal appeals court granted a Bush administration request to make more legal arguments over the fate of hundreds of lawsuits filed by detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “D.C. Circuit to weigh Hamdan impact.”

“When Eminent Domain Loses: The Ohio Supreme Court strikes a major blow for property rights.” Duncan Currie has this essay online today at The Weekly Standard.

“Justice Bypassed: All parental consent laws for abortion include a judicial bypass process; On the ground, in state after state, that process is dysfunctional.” Helena Silverstein and Wayne Fishman have this essay online today at The American Prospect.

Judicial Council of the Second Circuit rejects misconduct charges against Chief Judge Robert N. Chatigny of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut arising out of judicial proceedings involving the impending execution of Connecticut death row inmate Michael Ross: Yesterday’s order of the judicial council can be accessed at this link, while a 46-page report filed earlier this month by a special committee convened to investigate the charges of misconduct can be accessed at this link.

From January of 2005, you can access a Boston Globe article headlined “Conn. delays execution of killer; Conflict of interest with lawyer eyed” and New York Times articles headlined “Killer’s Execution Is Delayed Despite Supreme Court Ruling” and “Judge Criticized Killer’s Lawyer Before Reprieve.” The transcript of what I previously described as “the quite remarkable teleconference” that Chief Judge Chatigny conducted can be accessed here via The Hartford Courant.

“If Daughters Decided: Even Supreme Court justices ruling on major constitutional issues can be swayed by their families; Is that a bad thing?” Reynolds Holding has this essay online at Time.com.

On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “Specter Proposes Bill to Challenge President” and “Civil Liberties Groups Oppose Surveillance Bill” (RealPlayer required).

“Remember Judges? The GOP ignores judicial nominations at their peril.” Sean Rushton has this essay today at National Review Online.

And Robert Novak’s syndicated column today is headlined “Republicans Not Capitalizing on Judge Issue.”

“L.A. Democrat Reluctantly Drawn Into Probe; Sensenbrenner Orders Panel to Investigate Conduct of U.S. Judge Real”: Lawrence Hurley has this article today in The Daily Journal of California.

“Threats Against Judges Are on the Rise”: The Associated Press provides this report.

Today’s rulings of note from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: In a ruling issued today, the Ninth Circuit joined the overwhelming majority of other federal appellate courts in resolving whether the “forum defendant rule” — which prohibits a defendant from removing a case from state court to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction if the defendant is a citizen of the State where the case was filed — is a jurisdictional or procedural requirement. Today’s ruling holds that the requirement is a waivable, non-jurisdictional defect subject to the 30-day time limit imposed under the removal statute. Today’s decision therefore overturns a federal district court’s sua sponte remand of a case that was sent back to state court approximately eight months after its removal, in violation of the forum defendant rule, to federal court.

And in a second decision issued today, the Ninth Circuit discusses when a resentencing under Booker must be performed by the same federal district judge who imposed the original sentence. Today’s opinion holds: “We believe the proper course is for the original sentencing judge to conduct the resentencing, particularly where the judge felt strongly enough to make on-the-record statements about the propriety of the sentence he was required to impose under the Guidelines.”

In Ninth Circuit-related news from Alaska: The Anchorage Daily News yesterday reported that “Court questions suit against bridge across Newhalen River; Lodge owner claims road violates civil rights, allows easy access to property.” The oral argument audio is available here (Windows Media format; right click to save to disk).

And The Associated Press provides reports headlined “Urban hunters argue case for access in subsistence suit; 9th Circuit hears appeal on constitutionality of regulations for federal lands” (oral argument audio available here) and “Appeals judges approve drilling for oil in NPR-A; Challengers had tried to limit development on environmental grounds.”

“Congress vs. another chimera”: Yesterday, The Chicago Tribune contained an editorial that begins, “We all know that an epic battle is shaping up between Republicans and Democrats in the November congressional races. But lately, a lot of House Republicans act as though they’re running against someone else: the entire federal judiciary.”

“Ohio Landowners Win Eminent Domain Case; State’s high court rules that a Cincinnati suburb can’t seize property to help boost its economy”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

The Cincinnati Enquirer today contains articles headlined “Coming home to Norwood; Decision a blow to city’s recovery“; “Anticipated revenue from tax turns to dust“; “Momentum building for backlash; States already addressing property rights issues“; “Dump it? Build around? Buy them out?“; “Ruling affects other domain cases“; and “‘I’m thrilled to own my house again.’” In addition, the newspaper contains an editorial entitled “Big victory for property owners.”

The Cleveland Plain Dealer contains articles headlined “Court limits eminent domain; Court: Money can’t drive eminent domain” and “Ruling pleases lawyers in local domain cases.”

The Toledo Blade reports that “Justices block seizure of residence; unanimous decision limits use of eminent-domain law.”

The Columbus Dispatch contains articles headlined “Score one for Ohio property owners; Court: Land seizures can’t be just for economic gain” and “City officials analyzing ruling’s effect on future projects.”

And The Dayton Daily News contains articles headlined “Top court limits eminent domain for developments; Economic improvement alone is not enough reason to take private land, the court rules unanimously” and “Definition of blighted is key for eminent domain cases; Some fear ruling will hurt municipalities’ abilities to turn some areas around with private development.”

“Indictment issued in library foot-kissing; The case was presented directly to the grand jury”: This article appeared Tuesday in The Vindicator of Youngstown, Ohio. My earlier, unrelated coverage of a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejecting an asserted constitutional right not to wear shoes in an Ohio library can be accessed at this link.

Neal Katyal on “The Colbert Report“: We learn, among other things, that the “T” in “Katyal” is not silent. You can view the video via “YouTube” by clicking here.

Suppression of evidence “Gone Wild”: The Associated Press reports that “Evidence Tossed in ‘Girls Gone Wild’ Case.” You can access yesterday’s ruling by clicking here.

In jurisprudence essays available online from Slate: Dahlia Lithwick has an essay entitled “Rational Lampoon: How to make a thorny constitutional question disappear” in which she analyzes yesterday’s same-sex marriage ruling (links to that ruling can be accessed via this earlier post) from the Washington State Supreme Court.

And Emily Bazelon has an essay entitled “Hamdan Hoax, Part 3: The mistaken defense of Sens. Kyl and Graham.”

Intermediate appellate court in Texas vacates law professor‘s conviction for using her car to intentionally run down a bicyclist: You can access at this link yesterday’s ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas.

My initial coverage of this matter appeared in July 2004 in a post titled “Law professor gains first-hand experience in criminal law and torts.” Post covering the trial, which occurred in June 2005, can be accessed here, here, and here.

“Specter takes step to halt Bush signing statements; Says Congress needs power to sue president”: Charlie Savage has this article today in The Boston Globe.

“Rules Debated for Trials of Detainees”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

And The Washington Post reports today that “Proposal Calls for Tribunal-Style Trials; Plan for Detainees Was Created Without Much Input From Military Lawyers.”

“Administration and Critics, in Senate Testimony, Clash Over Eavesdropping Compromise”: The New York Times contains this article today.

And The Washington Post reports today that “Officials Urge Law to Allow Eavesdropping; Foreign Calls Routed Through U.S. at Issue.”

“Lawyer Is Upping the Ante in Claims of Idea Theft in Hollywood”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

“U.S. Can Withhold Security Firm Data; The Times loses its bid in court for the names of contractors involved in shootings in Iraq”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Investors’ Class-Action Lawsuits Drop Sharply; Stock Gains, Governance Measures Cited”: The Washington Post contains this article today.

“Parental Notification”: This editorial appears today in The New York Times.

“Threats up against federal judges; Marshals boost investigator ranks”: Today’s edition of USA Today contains this front page article, along with a related article headlined “Judges clamor for protection after killings, threats.”

“White House Sticks To Wiretap Argument; Despite Backlash, Lawyers Defend Presidential Authority In Letters to Lawmakers”: This article (free access) appeared yesterday in The Wall Street Journal.

“Democrats Oppose Bill Denying Attorneys’ Fees”: Today in The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein has an article that begins, “Democratic lawmakers in the House are expressing strong opposition to legislation that would deny attorneys’ fees to individuals and groups who win cases challenging government actions as a violation of the Constitution’s prohibition on the establishment of religion.”