“Police Say Crime Scene Was Altered”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “Two weeks after a prominent lawyer was killed in a Washington townhouse, D.C. police are still searching the home for clues, and they believe crime scene evidence was cleaned, according to court documents.”

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Follies: Military recruiters are cutting corners to meet goals; So why do the services keep kicking out gay men and lesbians?” This editorial appears today in The Washington Post.

“A Gotti Approaches the Bench”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “It is safe to assume that, after 39 years on the federal bench, Judge Jack B. Weinstein has had his share of fan mail. Jurists may not receive as many letters as, say, movie stars or rock ’n’ rollers, but it would be unlikely for a legal giant who has issued rulings on everything from Agent Orange to asbestos not to have received at least a couple of mash notes.”

“Bad idea: Flipping off the judge; Offender jailed, required to apologize for obscenities.” This article appears today in The Times of Munster, Indiana.

“This appeal calls upon us to decide whether a district court’s sentence can be upheld as reasonable when it is based solely on the district court’s policy disagreement with how the United States Sentencing Guidelines treat crack cocaine offenses as compared to powder cocaine offenses, notwithstanding Congress’s repeated rejection of proposals to alter that treatment.” In a lengthy opinion issued today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit answers “no.”

“Husband Takes Schiavo Fight Back to Politicians”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

Hey Chad, how’s it hangin’? The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Justices order more evidence gathering in city council stalemate” that begins, “A court erred when declaring a winner in a city council election that was so close that a coin toss and two recounts did not resolve who won, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. Rick Bain, a council candidate in the Cleveland suburb of Pepper Pike, should have been allowed to present evidence he says shows that a punch-card ballot with a hanging chad would break a tie in his favor, the Supreme Court said.”

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

“Non-US citizens cannot claim bias outside US-court”: Reuters provides this report. My earlier coverage is here.

“Young Lawyers Flock To Chertoff & Rumsfeld”: Anna Schneider-Mayerson has this article in the August 21, 2006 issue of The New York Observer.

Savages who blog: Luiza Ch. Savage has a blog, which you can access at this link via Macleans.ca. Now if only her husband Charlie of The Boston Globe also had a blog, or even David G. (possibly “no relation“) of the LA Times.

“The question presented in this appeal is whether Delaware’s Freedom of Information Act violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution by restricting noncitizens’ rights to access, inspect, and copy public documents.” Today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a decision agreeing with a Delaware-based federal district court in answering that question in the affirmative. Today’s ruling thus affirms the district court’s injunction prohibiting Delaware from limiting FOIA benefits to Delaware citizens.

In early press coverage, The Delaware News Journal provides an update headlined “Federal court orders Delaware to open public records to nonresidents.”

Eleventh Circuit affirms the dismissal of lawsuit seeking damages for injuries caused by INS agents’ use of force during the execution of the warrants authorizing the removal of Elian Gonzalez from his great-uncle’s home in Miami on April 22, 2000: You can access today’s ruling at this link.

“The question before us, as framed by the parties, is whether a reasonable jury reviewing the three photographs could have concluded that they met the statutory requirement of ‘lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area.'” A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in a majority opinion and an opinion concurring in the judgment issued today, spends 39 pages discussing that issue in an appeal by the federal government from “a pre-trial order by a district court excluding from jury consideration three photographs, which the government has charged are child pornography.”

“Court Nixes Mich. School Sports Schedule”: The Associated Press provides this report.

And The Detroit News provides an update headlined “State high school body vows to appeal circuit court ruling.”

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“The Outsourcing of American Law: Who needs federal judges when you have Canadians?” Ariel N. Lavinbuk has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

Three-judge Sixth Circuit panel rejects Thomas M. Cooley Law School‘s claim that the American Bar Association denied Cooley due process in failing to accredit Cooley’s two proposed satellite campuses and in imposing sanctions on Cooley for operating the satellites without prior ABA acquiescence: You can access today’s ruling at this link.

“This case presents the question of whether a change in a rule governing the adjudication of social security disability benefits claims that is applied as of its effective date to all pending cases has an impermissibly retroactive effect.” So begins the opinion issued today announcing the judgment of an en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. By a vote of 7-1-1-5, the court today has ruled that “The change in the rule is * * * not impermissibly retroactive.”

Circuit Judge Ronald Lee Gilman‘s opinion concurring in the judgment begins, “‘Any test of retroactivity,’ the Supreme Court has acknowledged, ‘will leave room for disagreement in hard cases.’ Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 270 (1994). As the four opinions produced today demonstrate, this is such a case.”

On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit again holds that the Michigan High School Athletic Association‘s scheduling of sports seasons discriminates against female athletes on the basis of gender: You can access today’s three-judge panel ruling at this link. Maureen E. Mahoney argued the case in the Sixth Circuit on behalf of the MHSAA.

“Commandments set for Idaho vote”: The Washington Times today contains an article that begins, “The Idaho Supreme Court has authorized the nation’s first ballot initiative to let voters decide whether a Boise public park should be allowed to have a Ten Commandments monument, like the one removed two years ago.”

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

In re Led Zeppelin song lyrics litigation: There are at least two Led Zeppelin songs whose lyrics discuss falling out of bed in response to citrus fruit squeezing, “Travelling Riverside Blues” and “The Lemon Song.”

Today, The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger contains an article headlined “Suit over loft bed falls short; Appeals court says no damages for lack of warning label” that begins, “Coffee is served in cups that warn: ‘Caution: This beverage is extremely hot.’ Ladders carry warnings about falls. Lawn tractors are emblazoned with stick figures depicting the risk of amputation. Is there any hazard so obvious it does not require a warning label? Yes, a state appeals court said yesterday. It ruled the risk of falling from a loft bed is obvious, at least when that bed is used by a college student. It overturned a $179,001 award to a college senior who blamed his fall from a loft bed on the lack of a warning label.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, at this link.

“Judge in ‘Mafia Cops’ Trial Received Angry Letters After Decision”: This article appears today in The New York Sun.

“Judge rules Chronicle reporters must name their BALCO sources”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

And The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Chronicle Reporters Ordered to Reveal Sources in Bonds Case; A federal judge rules the writers must identify those who leaked secret grand jury testimony in the BALCO steroid probe.”

My earlier coverage is at this link.

“Court: Bible display must go; Ruling finds Harris County monument’s initial purpose was changed.” The Houston Chronicle today contains an article that begins, “A Bible must be removed from a 50-year-old monument in front of the Harris County civil courthouse because a district judge changed it from a secular to a religious use in violation of the Constitution, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court upholds order to remove Bible from courthouse.”

My earlier coverage appears at this link. In addition, my “20 questions for the appellate judge” interview with the dissenting judge can be accessed here, while a glimpse of the judge who wrote the majority opinion can be viewed via the blogs of several of his recent law clerks (see here, here, and here).

“Boise to put Ten Commandments to vote; City staff is working to get initiative on Nov. 7 ballot so voters can decide whether to have monument in park”: Today’s edition of The Idaho Statesman contains an article that begins, “The city of Boise is working to let voters decide Nov. 7 on whether Julia Davis Park should again be the site of a monument to the Ten Commandments. The Idaho Supreme Court ruled Monday that the city of Boise was wrong to deny a 2004 petition to ask voters whether they want a Ten Commandments monument at the park. The court overturned a district court decision that had sided with the city in not allowing the petition.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Idaho at this link, while a summary of the ruling that the court prepared for the convenience of the media is here.

“Unusual Cert Petition Deals With Certified Queries, Theories and ‘Erie'”: law.com’s Shannon P. Duffy provides this report.

Update: Lyle Denniston of “SCOTUSblog” emails to note that the case has been docketed in the U.S. Supreme Court at No. 06-186.

“Ruling lets lawyers move on effort to clear Lay”: The Houston Chronicle provides this news update.

“Reporters Must Testify Over Bonds Leak”: David Kravets of The Associated Press provides this report.

“Judge: Chronicle reporters must testify.” Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle provides a news update that begins, “A federal judge ruled today that two Chronicle reporters must disclose their sources of grand jury testimony by Barry Bonds and other prominent athletes about steroid use.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California at this link.

“This appeal raises questions about the constitutionality of a monument, dedicated to a local citizen, located on the grounds of the Harris County Civil Courthouse. The rub is that the monument contains an open Bible.” So begins an opinion that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued today. At issue in the case is a monument to William S. Mosher, “a prominent Houston businessman and philanthropist who had been a long-time, active supporter of Star of Hope before his death in 1948.”

The majority opinion contains the following description of the monument: “The top part of the monument is a glass-topped display case that is sloped towards the Courthouse entrance. Star of Hope placed an open Bible in the glass display case to memorialize Mosher’s Christian faith, although the monument contains no written explanation for the presence of the Bible. The sloping top of the monument has the appearance of a lectern. The display case does not contain any other items.” You can view an image of the monument by clicking here.

Today’s majority opinion affirms a federal district court’s ruling that ordered removal of the Bible from the monument. The majority opinion’s final paragraph begins: “Because the objective observer would conclude that the current purpose of the monument has evolved into, and presently constitutes, a religious symbol, the Mosher monument containing a Bible violates the Establishment Clause.” Circuit Judge E. Grady Jolly wrote the majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham joined.

Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith dissented in an opinion that begins, “The panel majority exhibits an appalling hostility to any hint of religion in public spaces. Moreover, it does so by means of a misguided attempt to apply the Supreme Court’s recent opinions in McCreary and Van Orden.”

This case has already received extensive press coverage. The San Antonio Express-News has published articles headlined “Battle of the Bible gets ugly” and “Judges weighing Houston display.”

The Associated Press has provided reports headlined “Texas woman wants Bible out of courthouse monument” and “Remove Bible from courthouse display, judge says.”

And Click2Houston.com has provided reports headlined “3-Judge Panel: Bible Stays Put Despite Ruling; Stay Remains In Effect Until All Appeals Are Exhausted“; “Clergy Support County’s Plan To Appeal Bible Ruling; Judge Rules Monument On County Property Unconstitutional“; “Bible Display Supporters To Appeal Judge’s Ruling; Monument Honors Mosher For Contributions To Homeless Programs“: “Judge: Courthouse Bible Display Unconstitutional“; “Bible Supporters Gather For Lunch-Hour Protest; People Assemble Outside Civil Courthouse Near Monument“; and “Lawsuit Wants Bible Removed From Monument; Judge Says Bible In Monument Is Tribute To Devoutly Religious Industrialist.”

“Topless Bar Topples Lewdness Law”: Shannon P. Duffy of The Legal Intelligencer provides this news update (free access). My earlier coverage is here.

“None of our sister circuits has addressed in a published decision whether 42 U.S.C. §1981 applies extraterritorially, but those district courts that have considered the question have unanimously agreed that the statute does not apply outside the United States.” And today a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit joins with those other courts in holding that Section 1981, which prohibits racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of private contracts, does not apply extraterritorially. You can access today’s ruling at this link.

“Jurisprudence: Teen Terror Charges.” This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Dahlia Lithwick appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day.”

When it comes to adult entertainment, semi-nude doesn’t necessarily equal lewd: A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit today issued an opinion declaring facially invalid a Pennsylvania Liquor Code statute and regulation that prohibit “lewd” entertainment at any licensed establishment. Today’s decision explains, “We conclude that the statute and regulation are facially invalid because they are substantially overbroad, punishing a significant amount of protected speech in relation to their legitimate scope.”

Today’s ruling is the second nude dancing / lewd dancing opinion that Circuit Judge Julio M. Fuentes has issued in the past month. Last month’s opinion rejected a constitutional challenge to a New Jersey regulation prohibiting “any lewdness or immoral activity” on liquor-licensed premises. My coverage of that ruling appeared here.

“4 years and 3500 entries ago”: Kevin Heller’s “Tech Law Advisor” blog came into existence four years ago today.

“Blumenthal Says Judicial Review Council Documents Are Public”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Investigative records such as those used to charge former state Chief Justice William Sullivan with violating state law and the judicial code of conduct should be made public, Connecticut’s attorney general said Tuesday.”