“Smoke but No Fire: A tobacco decision makes an important symbolic statement, but it won’t prevent smoking deaths.” This editorial appears today in The Washington Post. The newspaper today also contains an article headlined “Tobacco Ruling Seen as a Win for Shareholders.”

And The New York Times on Sunday will contain an editorial entitled “Tobacco Racketeers Get Off Easy.”

“Every Executive Needs a Limit: Judge Taylor got it right on wiretapping.” Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Save the Endangered Whistle-Blower”: This editorial appears today in The New York Times.

“Ongoing misconceptions about Judge Taylor’s opinion”: Glenn Greenwald has this post today at his “Unclaimed Territory” blog.

“Using Nearly Nude Pictures, Child Sex Sites Test Laws”: This article will appear Sunday in The New York Times.

“Judge: Marker can stay on lawn.” The Tulsa World today contains an article that begins, “A granite monument to the Ten Commandments planted in the soil of the Haskell County Courthouse lawn in Stigler nearly two years ago will stay there because it does not violate the constitutional divide between religion and government, a Muskogee federal judge ruled Friday.”

And The Oklahoman reports today that “Court says commandments monument can stay.”

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“The shocking decision in ACLU v. NSA”: Ann Althouse has now read the decision and has this post at her blog today.

“Ex-judge sentenced to 4 years”: The Tulsa World today contains an article that begins, “Former Creek County Judge Donald Thompson was led from a courtroom in handcuffs Friday to immediately begin serving a four-year prison term for indecent exposure.”

The Oklahoman reports today that “Ex-judge Thompson sentenced to four years in prison.”

And The Sapulpa (Okla.) Daily Herald reports that “Thompson sentenced to four years.”

Interesting articles recently posted online at SSRN: Law Professor John Bronsteen posted online yesterday an article titled “Against Summary Judgment” (abstract with link for download). I’m told that this blog is cited in one of the article’s footnotes.

And Law Professor Adam Mossoff on Wednesday posted online an article titled “Patents as Constitutional Private Property: The Historical Protection of Patents under the Takings Clause” (abstract with link for download). The abstract begins, “Conventional wisdom maintains that early courts never secured patents as constitutional private property under the Takings Clause. In examining long-forgotten judicial opinions and legislative records, this Essay reveals that this is a profoundly mistaken historical claim.”

“Hard to Predict 6th Circuit’s NSA Ruling”: The Associated Press provides this report.

Relatedly, the brand new installment of my weekly “On Appeal” column for law.com is headlined “Affirmance, Reversal and the NSA Wiretap Case; Ruling on domestic surveillance refocuses attention on trial court opinions’ impact on appellate proceedings.” Three paragraphs from the end of that essay, I write:

Given the intense attention that the trial court’s opinion has already received, I expect that soon attention will turn to the judges of the 6th Circuit, who have shown themselves not always to be one happy family in high-profile cases of national importance. The 6th Circuit is home to some of the nation’s most thoughtful liberal and conservative jurists, and when they serve together on a particularly divisive case it is not unusual for clashes to occur.

The link contained in that sentence in the law.com version of the essay isn’t working properly as of this moment, but in the above quotation I’ve included the proper link.

“Ethics panel admonishes Nuss”: The Wichita Eagle today contains an article that begins, ” A judicial ethics panel admonished Kansas Supreme Court Justice Lawton Nuss on Friday for discussing a long-running school finance lawsuit with two state senators.” In addition, the newspaper contains an editorial entitled “Nuss’ bad judgment.”

The Kansas City Star reports today that “Board admonishes judge; Judicial panelists say canons of behavior were violated by state high court member.”

The Topeka Capital-Journal reports that “Ethics panel scolds justice; Commission rules Nuss broke code of conduct by speaking to senators.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Kansas Justice Admonished Over Conduct.”

“Is Newman Stepping Down?” The Legal Intelligencer yesterday posted online a news update (free access) that begins, “For Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Sandra Schultz Newman, the past year-and-a-half has brought a dramatic series of ups and downs. This past October, her husband, Julius, a renowned cosmetic surgeon, died following a lengthy illness. About a month later, Newman was elected to a second 10-year term as a justice, but it was, in many respects, something of a Pyrrhic victory.”

In somewhat related news, on Thursday The Herald-Standard of Uniontown, Pennsylvania published an interesting article headlined “Leading law expert asks state’s highest court for reforms.”

“Pataki Appoints Fifth Republican to Highest Court”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “Gov. George E. Pataki nominated an upstate Republican on Friday to be his fifth appointee on the seven-member Court of Appeals, moving to assure that his imprint on the state’s highest court will last long into the next governor’s term.”

And The Buffalo News reports today that “Pigott respected on both sides of aisle; Top court appointee reflects Pataki’s politics but is widely praised as bright, fair-minded.” And Thursday’s newspaper contained an article headlined “Pigott seen as prospect for Court of Appeals; Considered strong on Pataki’s list of 7.”

The Albany Times Union reports today that “Pataki opts for a new judge; Court of Appeals nominee Eugene F. Pigott Jr. would replace lone African-American member.” And earlier this week, the newspaper reported that “Pataki urged to factor diversity in court pick.”

The Journal News of Westchester, New York reports that “Pataki denies reappointment to lone black judge.”

And The New York Law Journal reports that “Pataki Nominates Pigott for High Court; Would Be First Buffalo-Area Judge Since 1980s” (free access).

Law bloggers mentioned on the front page of today’s issue of The New York Times: Both Law Professor Jack M. Balkin of the “Balkinization” blog and I are mentioned as law bloggers on the front page of today’s newspaper of record in the opening paragraphs of Adam Liptak’s article headlined “Experts Fault Reasoning in Surveillance Decision.”

I’m mentioned in the third and fourth paragraphs of the article, which state:

Discomfort with the quality of the decision is almost universal, said Howard J. Bashman, a Pennsylvania lawyer whose Web log provides comprehensive and nonpartisan reports on legal developments.

“It does appear,” Mr. Bashman said, “that folks on all sides of the spectrum, both those who support it and those who oppose it, say the decision is not strongly grounded in legal authority.”

The best copy of today’s front page available online is a PDF copy from The Newseum. The newspaper’s own web site provides images of both the New York City edition and the national edition. And The Newseum also provides a JPEG of today’s front page.

Law bloggers mentioned on the front pages of major newspapers isn’t yet a category that Ian Best catalogues at his “3L Epiphany” blog. But Ian does have an interesting new post titled “Law Review Articles Citing Legal Blogs.”

Oklahoma federal district judge rejects argument that Ten Commandments Monument on the lawn of the Haskell County courthouse violates the Establishment Clause and must be removed: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma at this link. The courthouse is located in the town of Stigler, Oklahoma.

In news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Judge Allows Ten Commandments Monument.” And back in May 2006, The AP reported that “Okla. display of Ten Commandments goes to trial.” Today’s ruling comes on a day when The AP also reported that “Commandments monuments erected in 2 Okla. counties.”

Following today’s ruling, the Alliance Defense Fund issued a press release entitled “Still standing: Court declares Oklahoma Ten Commandments display constitutional; Monument defended by ADF attorneys withstands legal challenge by ACLU.”

“Experts Fault Reasoning in Surveillance Decision”: Adam Liptak will have this article, in which I and various other law bloggers are quoted, Saturday in The New York Times.

And the newspaper tomorrow will also contain an article by Eric Lichtblau headlined “Bush Predicts Appeals Court Will Lift Ban on Wiretaps.”

“Affirmance, Reversal and the NSA Wiretap Case; Ruling on domestic surveillance refocuses attention on trial court opinions’ impact on appellate proceedings”: The brand new installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com can be accessed at this link.

Lakewood BlueClaws 4, Hagerstown Suns 0: This evening, my son and I had the pleasure of watching the Philadelphia Phillies single-A affiliate beat the New York Mets single-A affiliate. You can access the box score at this link, while wraps are here and here.

Despite this evening’s “Snakes In A Ballpark” promotion, I’m pleased to report that no snakes appeared in the area of the ballpark where we were seated. And although pictured here, the green eyeball did not participate in this evening’s race; the public address announcer reported that it was on the disabled list. As for the outcome, the red eyeball beat the blue by a lash.

“Bush Defends Surveillance Program”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“The Supreme Court was unanimously wrong in Rumsfeld v. FAIR.” So begins the abstract to an article (with link for download) that Law Professor Dale Carpenter posted online today at SSRN.

Is Pennsylvania death row inmate Hubert Michael a death penalty volunteer, or isn’t he, and does he remain competent to decide the answer to that question? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued this decision today.

“To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a computer.” A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit today invokes that quote from the Farmers’ Almanac in dismissing an appeal in a criminal case.

The reason for the dismissal is that the defendant’s counsel mistakenly filed, using the federal district court’s electronic filing system, a notice of appeal prepared for filing in a different case. Thus, the notice of appeal failed correctly to specify either the order appealed from or the party taking the appeal. Then, according to today’s opinion, once the district court brought these errors to the attention of defendant’s counsel, the lawyer failed to confirm whether the proper notice of appeal had been electronically filed and later argued that the incorrect notice of appeal sufficed to appeal from an order not specified in the notice on behalf of a client not specified in the notice.

You can access today’s ruling at this link.

“Feds Appeal Ruling on Surveillance”: The Associated Press provides this report. The parties’ stay stipulation only applies until the district court considers the federal government’s request for a stay pending appeal.

“Judge Gets 4 Years for Exposing Himself”: From Oklahoma, The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A former judge convicted of exposing himself while presiding over jury trials by using a sexual device under his robe was sentenced Friday to four years in prison.”

And The Oklahoman provides a news update headlined “Ex-judge gets 4-year jail term.”

In an article previewing the sentencing, The Sapulpa (Okla.) Daily Herald today contains an article headlined “Thompson sentencing today.”

“NSA Wiretap Appeal: Does a Poorly-Reasoned Trial Court Opinion Diminish the Odds of Affirmance?” That’s the preliminary title for next Monday’s installment of my weekly “On Appeal” column, which law.com will post online here around 10:30 p.m. eastern time tonight. As I mention in the forthcoming column, it will be interesting to see whether the U.S. Department of Justice, seeking to avoid the possibility of having the case randomly assigned to a liberal-dominated three-judge panel, will request an initial hearing en banc from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

“We conclude that summary judgment was appropriate and that the district court correctly held that Brick Oven, as used to identify pizza, is a generic term.” Just in time for lunch, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit today issued this opinion affirming the rejection of a trademark infringement claim regarding the use of the term “Brick Oven” in describing frozen pizzas.

En banc D.C. Circuit addresses whether, and in what circumstances, the defendant in an action brought pursuant to the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 may assert the Speech or Debate Clause as a jurisdictional bar, thereby requiring summary dismissal of the action: Eight judges participated in the decision, which consists of four separate opinions. It appears, however, that all judges concur in today’s outcome. As the lead opinion explains, the Act in question “confers on ‘covered employees’ rights and remedies drawn from various labor and employment statutes not previously applicable to the legislative branch.”

On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “Judge Rules Against Government Wiretapping Program” and “Judge Rules Against Tobacco Industry for Conspiracy.”

“The Bush doctrine under surveillance: The first court ruling on NSA’s warrantless spying delivers another stinging rebuke to the president’s wartime power grab.” Glenn Greenwald has this essay today at Salon.com.

At National Review Online, Bryan Cunningham has an essay entitled “Amateur Hour? A judge’s first-year failing-grade opinion.”

And at the “Balkinization” blog, Marty Lederman offers these thoughts.

“The Kelo Backlash: What the Supreme Court touched off with its eminent domain decision.” Jonathan V. Last has this essay in the August 21, 2006 issue of The Weekly Standard.

“Wiretap Project Ruled Illegal; Warrantless domestic eavesdropping violates the Constitution, a judge rules, sharply rebuffing claims that Bush has unwritten powers”: Henry Weinstein has this article today in The Los Angeles Times. The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Bush: Unconstitutional, Again; The president and Congress should spend more time following the law and less trying to find creative ways to break it.”

Today in The Boston Globe, Charlie Savage reports that “Judge’s ruling bars warrantless wiretaps; Contends program intrudes on rights.”

In The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Judge’s rejection of Bush wiretaps just first round.”

The Baltimore Sun reports that “NSA spying ruled illegal; Federal judge strikes down warrantless domestic eavesdropping.”

The Washington Times reports that “NSA surveillance struck down.”

USA Today reports that “Wiretap program illegal; Bush administration to appeal judge’s ruling.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Wiretap ruling affirms that presidents aren’t monarchs; If eavesdropping law needs to be strengthened, fix it, don’t break it” and an op-ed by James S. Robbins entitled “NSA program is vital tool; Judge’s abstract ruling in wiretap case deserves to be overturned.”

The Detroit News contains articles headlined “Bush wiretaps illegal; Feds will appeal Detroit judge’s ruling” and “Judge was immersed in civil rights movement.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Operate within law on electronic snooping; Judge rules that warrantless intercepts violate Constitution.”

The Detroit Free Press contains an article headlined “Challenge promised over ruling in spy case; Detroit judge: Program illegal.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “A Detroit Judge with Backbone.”

The New York Times contains an editorial entitled “Ruling for the Law.”

The Washington Post contains an editorial entitled “A Judicial Misfire: The first federal court opinion on warrantless NSA surveillance is full of sound and fury.”

The Wall Street Journal contains an editorial entitled “President Taylor: A federal judge rewrites the Constitution on war powers” (free access).

And The New York Sun contains an editorial entitled “Ruling for the Terrorists.”

“Big Tobacco Is Guilty of Conspiracy; Major cigarette makers lied for decades about the risks of smoking, a judge rules; Her words are harsh, but her sanctions are light”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

The Chicago Tribune reports today that “Tobacco loses big, but not in dollars; Judge: Industry broke racketeering laws.”

And USA Today reports that “Judge’s ruling slams Big Tobacco; But companies don’t have to pay $14B.”

“Mannequin in Suit — Lawsuit, That Is; Westminster woman sues J.C. Penney after she and the dummy clash over a blouse”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Political chasm on judges”: U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) has this op-ed today in The Washington Times.

“Discrimination suit vs Angels to stand”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A judge refused Thursday to dismiss a lawsuit that claimed the Angels discriminated against men by giving tote bags to only women during a Mother’s Day baseball game.”