“Employer’s right to monitor online activity reaffirmed”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

And Reuters reports that “Court rules against man in porn-at-work case.”

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“Blogging and the Workplace; Regulating employees’ wanderings through the ‘blogosphere'”: law.com provides this article from The Corporate Counselor.

“Software Glitch May Have Erased E-Mail Text in Enron Suits”: The American Lawyer provides this report.

“Baseball Appealing Fantasy Legal Victory”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Major League Baseball says it will appeal a federal court ruling allowing an online fantasy baseball business to use names and statistics without paying for a licensing agreement.” My earlier coverage appears here.

“Ninth Circuit Mostly Eliminates Private-Sector Workplace Privacy Rights in Computers”: At “OrinKerr.com,” you can access a post that begins, “This is a very long blog post in response to a troubling new Fourth Amendment decision handed down by the Ninth Circuit yesterday, United States v. Ziegler.” And a strikingly similar post appears here at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“In this appeal we must determine whether a provision in an arbitration agreement that is part of a consumer contract of adhesion is unconscionable and therefore unenforceable because it forbids class-wide arbitration.” The Supreme Court of New Jersey answered that question “yes” today in an opinion you can access here.

In response to the ruling, the organization Trial Lawyers for Public Justice has issued a press release entitled “New Jersey Supreme Court Strikes Down Consumer Class Action Ban as ‘Unconscionable and Unenforceable’; TLPJ Wins Nationally-Significant Ruling Against Payday Lender Preserving Consumer Class Actions.”

“State penalizes judges; 1 ordered courtroom Seahawks cheer”: This article appears today in The Seattle Times.

“Search for high court candidates hits snag; Panel wants request clarified by governor”: The Associated Press provides this report from Tennessee.

Fourth Circuit rules that beauty salon alleged to have told an African-American customer that it did not “do black people’s hair” does not face liability under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibiting racial discrimination in a “place of public accommodation,” but could be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which disallows such discrimination in the making and enforcing of contracts: You can access today’s ruling, by a partially divided three-judge panel, at this link. The judge who dissented in part would have also reinstated the Title II claim.

The main point of disagreement between the majority and the dissenting judge concerns whether a “spa” constitutes a “place of entertainment.”

What constitutes “a question of exceptional importance” justifying a grant of rehearing en banc? Eleventh Circuit Judge Ed Carnes addresses that issue in his opinion concurring in that court’s order issued today denying rehearing en banc in an unusual prisoner civil rights case.

Back in January 2006, a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit reversed in part the dismissal of a Georgia state prisoner’s lawsuit alleging a federal civil rights violation arising from the conduct of a prison guard who, according to the panel’s opinion, “made [the prisoner] strip and masturbate for her enjoyment.” The panel reinstated the prisoner’s claims under the First and Fourth Amendments, writing that the prisoner “has stated a claim under our privacy jurisprudence and for retaliation under the First Amendment.” The panel, however, affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the prisoner’s Eighth Amendment claim. My earlier coverage of that ruling appears here.

Today, Circuit Judge Rosemary Barkett dissents from the denial of rehearing en banc with respect to that portion of the panel’s decision affirming the dismissal of the prisoner’s Eighth Amendment claim. In explaining why the Eighth Amendment issue is not deserving of rehearing en banc even if Judge Barkett is correct that the panel erred in upholding the dismissal of that claim, Judge Carnes writes, “If [the prisoner] is entitled to X dollars because certain conduct violates his Fourth Amendment rights, he is not entitled to any more than X dollars if that same conduct also violates his Eighth Amendment rights.”

Judge Carnes’s opinion concludes: “Judges, acting like law professors, sometimes get caught up in the twists and whirls of a legal issue and debate beyond the point of conceivable consequence the doctrinal tags and tickets to be attached. Especially when deciding whether to take the extraordinary step of going en banc, we should keep in mind that the role of our court system in civil cases is not to decide how many analytical angels can dance on the head of a particular injury. Our role is to determine whether the plaintiff before the court is entitled to relief. We ought to leave the academic points to the academy, and by denying rehearing en banc today we do that.”

“Fantasy League Wins Ruling; Judge’s decision that baseball statistics are in public domain could have far-reaching effects”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

The New York Times today contains an article headlined “No License Is Required to Run a Fantasy League.”

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch contains an article headlined “Player statistics are ruled fair game in St. Louis case.”

USA Today reports that “Stats ruled free for use in fantasy games.”

And The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Strike 1: Major League Baseball can’t control player names, stats.”

Meanwhile, in commentary, Gene Policinski has an essay entitled “Good news in judge’s fantasy-league ruling” online at the First Amendment Center.

I have posted online at this link yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

“Jeffrey Rosen, author of ‘The Most Democratic Branch: How the Courts Serve America,’ discusses the Bush administration’s proposal on military commissions”: You can view Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen‘s appearance on yesterday’s broadcast of C-SPAN‘s “Washington Journal” by clicking here (RealPlayer required).

Meanwhile, Professor Rosen’s next book — “The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America” — looks to be quite interesting.

“Jacque Hollander appeals the dismissal, on statute of limitations grounds, of a personal injury action that she brought against James Brown and Brown Enterprises for an alleged 1988 incident of sexual assault.” So begins an opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued today. Today’s decision affirms the dismissal of the case against the Godfather of Soul.

Earlier press coverage of the case can be accessed here and here.

“Da Vinci Lawyers agree: Set appeal Time.” The Associated Press provides this report.

“Tinkering with Tinker standards?” Online today at the First Amendment Center, David L. Hudson Jr. has this essay.

Eighth Circuit rules that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity in lawsuit brought by minor teenage girl who objected to being strip-searched after being detained for violating a local curfew law: A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit today reversed a federal district court’s decision holding that two directors of the juvenile detention center were not entitled to qualified immunity. You can access today’s ruling at this link.

Additional background on the case is available in an Associated Press report headlined “Strip-search case leads to class-action filing” and a Sioux Falls Argus Leader article headlined “Strip search case on appeal; Federal court to decide legality.”

“Final Exit: The Sequel; Sam Brownback at your deathbed.” Jacob Sullum has this essay online today at Reason.

“Congress Considers Warning Labels for Web Sites”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition.”

“ABA urges halt to ‘signing statements’; Presses protection of checks and balances”: Today in The Boston Globe, Charlie Savage has an article that begins, “The American Bar Association’s House of Delegates voted yesterday to call on President Bush and future presidents not to issue ‘signing statements’ that claim the power to bypass laws, and it urged Congress to pass legislation to help courts put a stop to the growing practice.”

Also today, that newspaper contains an op-ed by Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe entitled “‘Signing statements’ are a phantom target.”

“UC Loses Bid to Stop Christian School Suit; A federal judge rules that the case alleging that admissions rules violate student freedoms can proceed to trial”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Lengthy Mandatory Sentence Appealed“; “Ex-Ohio State RB Maurice Clarett Arrested“; “Homeless in Mass. Sue Over Library Policy“; and “Judge admonished for ‘Go Seahawks’ Cheer.”

“Abortion Foe Allen Faulted for Stock in Morning-After Pill Maker”: The Washington Post contains this article today.

“Virginia vs. Vermont: Virginia should step aside — and let Janet Miller-Jenkins see her daughter.” This editorial appears today in The Washington Post. My most recent earlier coverage is here.

“War Crimes Act Changes Would Reduce Threat Of Prosecution”: The Washington Post today contains a front page article that begins, “The Bush administration has drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners, according to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendments.”

“Lawyers in Murder Appeal Use Cigarette-Break Defense”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“Bloggers Drive Inquiry on How Altered Images Saw Print”: The New York Times contains this article today.

The Washington Post reports today that “Blogger Takes Aim At News Media and Makes a Direct Hit.”

And The Christian Science Monitor reports that “A blogger shines when news media get it wrong.”

“A Face Is Exposed for AOL Searcher No. 4417749”: This article and a related graphic appear today in The New York Times.

Josh Gerstein is reporting: Today in The New York Sun, he has articles headlined “Plan for Israeli Agents To Use Disguises Challenged” and “Google Founders Silence Designer Of ‘Party Plane.’”

The first of those two articles begins, “A proposal to allow Israeli security agents to use ‘light disguise’ while testifying in an American court is under fire from a left-leaning civil liberties organization, the Center for Constitutional Rights.”

“Justices aid child-molestation victims”: The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger today contains an article that begins, “In a sweeping ruling that expands the ability of victims of childhood molestation to sue institutions that allowed it, the New Jersey Supreme Court yesterday cleared the way for a trial against Princeton’s prestigious American Boychoir School.”

And The New York Times reports today that “High Court in New Jersey Upholds Right to Sue School.”

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“Criminalizing Interstate Abortion Travel: Congress Targets People Who Assist Minors in Trouble.” Sherry F. Colb has this essay online today at FindLaw.