Federal Circuit issues its ruling in Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Laboratories, Ltd.: A patent case concerning the prescription drug Lipitor gives rise to today’s ruling.

“If W means what he says, he’ll pull plug on Wallace”: Today in The Houston Chronicle, columnist Cragg Hines has an op-ed that begins, “President Bush has spoken compellingly of late — in his NAACP speech and as he signed the Voting Rights Act extension — of his deep belief in equality. For those who greeted this with skepticism, Bush can vividly demonstrate such a commitment by withdrawing the nomination of Michael B. Wallace to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.”

“This is a contract murder case with irreconcilable jury verdicts leading one defendant to be sentenced to death and another — the defendant who initiated, contracted for, and paid for the murder — to be sentenced to life imprisonment.” Based on those facts, the majority on a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit today issued an opinion that begins, “We hold that the death sentence in this case violates the Eighth Amendment ‘arbitrariness’ standard outlined in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), which prohibits random, disproportionate capital sentences, as well as the proportionality requirement of Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982), and the due process, inconsistent verdict prohibition of Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82 (1934).”

Senior Circuit Judge Gilbert S. Merritt, whose views toward the death penalty have recently been discussed elsewhere (see here and here), wrote the majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Karen Nelson Moore joined.

Circuit Judge Ronald Lee Gilman issued a dissenting opinion in which he wrote, “Perhaps some day the Supreme Court will hold that a comparison between the culpability of a murderer and that of his codefendant is constitutionally required, and that inconsistent verdicts arising from separate trials are unconstitutional. But this is not the law of the land today, and was obviously not the ‘clearly established law’ at the time that the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed Getsy’s conviction and sentence in 1999.”

“Senate approves transfer of cross; Passage unanimous; Bush expected to sign”: The San Diego Union-Tribune today contains an article that begins, “The U.S. Senate approved a plan yesterday to transfer land beneath the Mount Soledad cross to the federal government, bolstering supporters who have been fending off efforts to remove the monument for nearly two decades.”

And The Los Angeles Times reports today that “U.S. Senate Votes to Acquire Site of Cross.”

“White House Proposal Would Expand Authority of Military Courts”: The Washington Post contains this article today.

“Evolution Foes Lose Their Edge on Kansas Board; The state education panel appears to be split 6-4 between supporters of Darwin’s theory and advocates of teaching intelligent design”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“N.Y. Times Must Surrender Reporters’ Phone Data; Appellate Panel Rejects First Amendment Claim in Federal Grand Jury Probe”: Charles Lane has this article today in The Washington Post.

And The New York Sun reports today that “Court Hands New York Times a Setback in Miller Case.”

“Blogger Jailed After Defying Court Orders”: The New York Times contains this article today.

In The Oakland Tribune, Josh Richman reports that “Freelance journalist jailed for refusal to give up video.”

In The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has articles headlined “Cameraman jailed for not yielding tape; ‘Every person … has to give information to the grand jury if the grand jury wants it,’ judge tells S.F. freelancer” and “Freelancer doesn’t want mainstream job.”

David Kravets of The Associated Press reports that “Journalist jailed in anarchy probe.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “Judge Jails San Francisco Man Who Filmed G-8 Street Protest.”

“Threats to judges — and their independence — mount; Court bashing endangers justice, undermines national stability”: This editorial appears today in USA Today, which also contains an op-ed by Tom McClusky entitled “Rein in activist judges: An independent judiciary, yes; An unrestrained judiciary, no.”

“4 ex-Merrill Lynch execs’ convictions overturned; 5th Circuit says charges in Enron scheme ‘flawed'”: The Houston Chronicle today contains this article reporting on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued late yesterday.

“U.S. Wins Access to Reporter Phone Records”: Adam Liptak will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.

Available online from law.com: An article reports that “2nd Circuit Rules New York Times Reporters’ Phone Records Not Protected.”

In other news, “N.Y. Panel Disbars Attorney for Forging Judge’s Name.”

The National Law Journal this week contains an article headlined “One Small Typo, Lots of Lawsuits; An error in the Deficit Reduction Act spurs suits on filing fees, Medicare.”

In other news, “Law Firms’ Trademark Dispute Over ‘Foley’ Name Is Put on Hold.”

And Carla J. Rozycki and David K. Haase have an essay entitled “Supreme Court Eases Standard for Title VII Retaliation Claims.”

“Government: Detainee cases must start over.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog” about a supplemental brief that the federal government filed today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

“The Hidden Function of Honoraria”: At “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has a post that likely will resonate with the spouses of many who receive out-of-town speaking invitations.

“Another extraordinary magnum opus from Judge Young”: At his “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog, Doug Berman has this post about today’s must-read opinion from U.S. District Judge William G. Young of the District of Massachusetts.

“‘Don’t Date Him Girl’ Lawsuit Update”: Jeralyn Merritt has this post today at “TalkLeft.”

“If Court Splits, State’s 9th Circuit Judges Will Still Face Heavy Load”: Lawrence Hurley has this article today in The Daily Journal of California.

“Ninth Circuit precedent for judicial reliance on legal weblogs”: Kimberly A. Kralowec has this post today at “The UCL Practitioner” blog.

And law.com’s “Legal Blog Watch” blog offers a related post titled “Blogs as an Amicus Brief in Action.”

“Court OK’s Look at Times’ Phone Records”: The Associated Press provides this report.

Ninth Circuit rejects challenge to the constitutionality of Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000’s individual land use assessments provision: The denial of a conditional use permit sought by a non-profit organization dedicated to fostering the teachings and practices of the Sikh religion, in order to construct a temple, on a parcel of land zoned “agricultural” gives rise to today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Divided three-judge Second Circuit panel reverses summary judgment in favor of The New York Times on the newspaper’s request for a declaratory judgment holding that phone records of its reporters in the hands of third party telephone providers are shielded from a grand jury subpoena by reporter’s privileges protecting the identity of confidential sources arising out of both the common law and the First Amendment: You can access today’s majority opinion in The New York Times Co. v. Gonzales at this link, while the dissenting opinion is here.

The majority opinion begins: “After the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, the federal government launched or intensified investigations into the funding of terrorist activities by organizations raising money in the United States. In the course of those investigations, the government developed a plan to freeze the assets and/or search the premises of two foundations. Two New York Times reporters learned of these plans, and, on the eve of each of the government’s actions, called each foundation for comment on the upcoming government freeze and/or searches.”

“Bench-Clearing Brawl: Judges need to join the fight to save the courts.” Bert Brandenburg recently had this essay online at Slate.

You can view live, online today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for D.C. Circuit nominee Peter D. Keisler: You can access the committee’s video feed by clicking here (RealPlayer required). The hearing’s agenda is here.

“Ninth Circuit Denies Review of Ruling on Anti-Gay Shirt”: Metropolitan News-Enterprise provides this report today.

At 2 p.m. eastern time today, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a confirmation hearing on the nomination of Peter D. Keisler to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit: The organization Alliance for Justice yesterday issued a “Preliminary Report on Nomination of Peter D. Keisler to D.C. Circuit.”

Last Thursday, all eight Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the committee’s chairman asking that today’s confirmation hearing be postponed. And the Alliance for Justice, People For the American Way, and various other organizations sent a similar letter yesterday.

Update: By the way, the American Bar Association panel that rates judicial nominees has given this nominee a unanimous “well qualified” rating, the most favorable rating available.

“Abortion under siege in Mississippi: Preaching that abortion is as evil as Islam, Nazism and homosexuality, dozens of activists have descended on Jackson, determined to shut down the state’s last abortion clinic.” Michelle Goldberg has this essay online today at Salon.com.

“Panel says lawyer unqualified to be judge; Jackson man nominated for appeals post praised for integrity, criticized for civil rights record”: This article appears today in The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi.

And The New York Daily News reports today that “W court pick called a foe of civil rights.”

The written testimony of the American Bar Association pertaining to Fifth Circuit nominee Michael B. Wallace can be accessed at this link. Wallace received a unanimous “not-qualified” rating from the ABA panel that evaluates judicial nominees. At National Review Online’s “Bench Memos” blog, Ed Whelan offers extensive commentary about the ABA’s written testimony (Ed’s most recent post on the topic appears here).

“Questions give hints in DeLay appeal; 2 judges seem to be leaning to Democrats’ stance of not changing ballot”: The Houston Chronicle contains this article today.

“High court reinstates Fieger reprimand for comments; Lawyer’s remarks likening justices to Nazis not protected speech, justices say; appeal likely”: This article appears today in The Detroit News.

The Detroit Free Press reports today that “Justices say Fieger spoke wrongly; Vulgarity wasn’t allowable, high court rules.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Mich. Supreme Court Reprimands Lawyer.”

You can access at this link yesterday’s 4-3 ruling of the Supreme Court of Michigan.

“Keep a Virginian on the bench”: Today in The Roanoke Times, Law Professor Carl Tobias has an op-ed which explains that “North Carolina’s Sens. Elizabeth Dole and Robert Burr have written Bush urging him to replace Luttig with a jurist from North Carolina.”

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Administration Appeals Spy Suit Ruling” and “Execution Doctor Defends Record.”

“Charm Offensive: So far, the new chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court has gotten raves-from the public, the media, and his own peers.” Dahlia Lithwick has this essay in the August 2006 issue of The American Lawyer.

“Rehearing on T-shirt is denied”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “Five conservative federal appeals court judges accused their colleagues of promoting censorship Monday after the court refused to reconsider an appeal by a Southern California student barred by his high school from wearing an anti-gay T-shirt to class.”

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“‘Morning-after’ pill reconsidered; FDA says it will take new look at ban on over-counter sales”: This article appears today in The Chicago Tribune.

The New York Times reports today that “F.D.A. Shifts View on Morning-After Pill.”

The Washington Post reports that “FDA to Reopen Discussions With Plan B Manufacturer.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Plan B Pill May Be Approaching Wider Release; Over-the-counter sale of the ‘morning-after’ contraceptive hinges on adult-only access.” And an editorial is entitled “New Dawn for Morning After Pill: At long last, the FDA caves to political pressure and signals interest in approving the Plan B pill.”

In The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein reports that “Bush May Okay Morning After Pill Without Rx.”

And USA Today reports that “‘Morning after’ pill closer to wider sales; FDA says it’s reconsidering over-the-counter Plan B.”

“Libby Suffered Memory Failure, Lawyers Say”: Josh Gerstein has this article today in The New York Sun.