“Couple Loses Challenge on Blood Test Law”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A federal judge has refused to throw out Nebraska’s one-of-a-kind newborn blood screening law.”

I have posted online at this link today’s ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf of the District of Nebraska. The opinion begins, “Loving parents want to delay the state-mandated testing of their newly born infants for metabolic diseases because of their sincere religious beliefs and because of their equally sincere and related concern for the health of their children. Just as committed to the well-being of newborns, the State of Nebraska refuses to accommodate the family. Nebraska fervently believes that such an accommodation would harm children.”

“White House Pressures GOP on Detainees”: The Associated Press provides this report.

A slightly less ‘Wild’ future is planned: The Los Angeles Times provides a news update headlined “‘Girls Gone Wild’ Cuts Plea Deal; The Santa Monica-based company failed to maintain age and identity documents for performers in sexually explicit films.”

And Hope Yen of The Associated Press reports that “‘Girls Gone Wild’ Company Pleads Guilty.”

You can access a copy of the deferred prosecution agreement filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida at this link.

“Floor votes, please”: The Washington Times today contains an editorial that begins, “Conservative activists waited apprehensively Friday for the Senate Judiciary Committee to move on stalled judicial nominees scheduled then for consideration.”

“Sex Offender Loses Bid to Stay Off Web ID List”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Dahlia Lithwick appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day.”

“Supreme Court denies Childers’ appeal”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Former Florida Senate President W.D. Childers’ bribery appeal will not be heard by the state Supreme Court, which decided it lacked jurisdiction over the case in a 4-2 vote Monday.”

The Tallahassee Democrat today contains an article headlined “Supreme Court rejects W.D. Childers’ appeal.” According to the article:

It was a deeply divided First District Court of Appeal that in February rejected Childers’ request for a new trial. Then, in June, that same court refused to ask the Supreme Court to consider the case.

June’s appellate court decision included an incendiary opinion written by Judge Michael Allen. It accused First District Court of Appeals Chief Judge Charles Kahn of the appearance of impropriety because of what Allen said was Kahn’s entanglement in Childers’ powerful political machine.

The appellate court’s ruling further revealed that a three-judge panel of the court, led by Kahn, in January 2005 was four days away from issuing an opinion that would have overturned Childers’ conviction.

Instead, a majority of the appeals court’s 15 judges voted for all of them to consider the case. Then, the full court in February 2006 issued a ruling, with 10 different judges writing opinions that upheld Childers’ 2003 conviction.

And The Pensacola News Journal reports that “Childers’ appeal denied; Ex-politician’s legal team to decide whether to take case to federal court.”

Back in July 2006, I had this lengthy post about the case.

“Judge sentences car in his spot to lockdown; When Judge Stanley Mills finds his reserved place taken, he blocks the car in for hours”: The St. Petersburg Times contains this article today.

“Voting Rights statute tested; Austin water district sues over portion dealing with minority participation”: This article appeared last Friday in The Houston Chronicle. Today at his “Election Law” blog, Rick Hasen has a post titled “Three-Judge Panel Named to Hear Texas Challenge to Constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.” The case is pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

“Because courts must be able to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, we have no hesitation in concluding that a party who files suit under a false name and proceeds with that deception right up to trial loses the right to seek judicial relief for the claims he was advancing.” So concludes an opinion that Circuit Judge Ed Carnes issued today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

“[T]o constitute an ADA impairment, a person’s obesity, even morbid obesity, must be the result of a physiological condition.” Non-physiological morbid obesity is not an “impairment” under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled today in an opinion you can access here.

Update: Law Professor Sam Bagenstos, at his “Disability Law” blog, offers these thoughts about the ruling.

“Court Hears Arguments on Guantanamo Transfers”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition.” According to the report, D.C. Circuit Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh is on the three-judge panel assigned to decide the case.

“Sens. Grassley, Sessions hold up a key nominee”: The Hill’s home page today contains a link to an article that begins, “Sens. Chuck Grassley (Iowa) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.), two Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, are holding up the nomination of Peter D. Keisler to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Bush administration’s top priority on judicial nominees this fall, according to knowledgeable sources.” The link to the article itself, however, produces a page where the word “ERROR” appears in place of the article’s text. Update: The Hill has fixed the error, and now the full text of the article can be accessed here.

“Sullivan Subpoena Case To Go On”: Today in The Hartford Courant, Lynne Tuohy has an article that begins, “A panel of seven Appellate Court judges will decide whether former Chief Justice William J. Sullivan can be compelled to testify during an investigation launched by the General Assembly’s judiciary committee into allegations of misconduct on his part.”

And The Connecticut Law Tribune reports that “Full Appellate Court To Sit As Supreme Court In Sullivan Subpoena Case.”

“Justice Department Lawyers Lose Appeal on Overtime Pay”: That’s the headline of Stephen Barr’s “Federal Diary” column today in The Washington Post. My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“Man Loses Suit to Keep Identity off Sex Offender Registry”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “John Doe must reveal who he is — and that he was convicted 12 years ago of incest — or face arrest for not submitting that information to Virginia’s sex-offender registry, a Prince William County judge ruled yesterday.”

“White House Gains Concessions in Senate Measure on Tribunals”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“Court Panel Denies Blogger’s Appeal”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “In a case closely watched by First Amendment advocates, a federal court panel has rejected an appeal by a freelance journalist and blogger who has refused to appear before a grand jury or turn over video he shot of a violent protest last summer.”

The San Francisco Chronicle reports today that “Freelance journalist loses appeal on keeping footage from grand jury; Cameraman lacked grounds to resist subpoena, judges say.”

And David Kravets of The Associated Press reports that “Appeals Court Rules Reporter in Contempt.”

Last Friday’s non-precedential ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit can be accessed here (scroll down) via “The Huffington Post.”

“Jack Bauer Insurance: Can CIA agents be sued for protecting America with too much vigor?” This editorial appears today in The Wall Street Journal.

“A Judge Accepts a Claim Paralleling the Mafia and the Tobacco Industry”: Anthony J. Sebok has this essay online at FindLaw.

“Motions denied in flag desecration case; Judge files orders, sets trial date”: Saturday’s edition of The Ottumwa (Iowa) Courier contained an article that begins, “The judge has denied two motions to dismiss filed by an Ottumwan accused of flag desecration.”

“8th Circuit Grapples With Sentencing Guidelines; Judge warns of a possible unlawful precedent”: law.com provides this report.

Seventh Circuit vacates federal district court’s approval of settlement in Airborne Express default shipping fee overcharge class action: Today’s ruling sustains the federal district court’s exercise of diversity jurisdiction based on the defendant’s cost of complying with the requested injunction but finds that the district court did not adequately examine the fairness of the proposed coupon settlement.

“This appeal involves a facial challenge, under the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, to various aspects of Virginia’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, which generally prohibits the importation, distribution, and sale of wine and beer in Virginia except through a regulated, three-tier structure.” So begins an opinion that a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued today.

“The question before us is whether clearly established Supreme Court law prohibited the New York Appellate Division from dismissing Taveras’s first-tier appeal on fugitive disentitlement grounds without appointing counsel and without providing a copy of any transcripts available and necessary for pursuing that appeal.” A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit holds that dismissal of the state court appeal was prohibited under these circumstances in a habeas corpus ruling issued today.

“A plea to clarify the filing deadline”: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post that begins, “Two former U.S. solicitors general, Harvard law professor Charles Fried and Washington attorney Seth P. Waxman, have urged the Supreme Court to settle a long-standing issue: the nature of the Court’s authority to give lawyers more time to file appeals.” A copy of the court filing can be accessed here.

“Third Circuit adds nuance to crack sentencing after Booker“: Doug Berman has this post at his “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog about an interesting ruling that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued today.

Programming note: I’ll be heading back home to the Philadelphia region after presenting oral argument this afternoon to a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati. Additional posts will appear later today.

Update: The particular three-judge Sixth Circuit panel that heard oral argument in my client’s case this afternoon was a pleasure to appear before. I also had the pleasure of meeting Circuit Judge Deborah L. Cook — who wasn’t on the three-judge panel that heard my client’s appeal — while waiting for an elevator.

“In his suit, Mr. Scholl alleges that the denial of his reappointment as a bankruptcy judge by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was in violation of his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and certain regulations relating to the reappointment of bankruptcy judges that have been promulgated by the Judicial Conference of the United States.” Today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion holding that “Because the Court of Federal Claims should not have exercised jurisdiction over Mr. Scholl’s suit and because the requirements for the writ of mandamus are met, we grant the government’s petition for a writ of mandamus and direct the court to dismiss Mr. Scholl’s complaint.”

“The Doe plaintiffs are a class of over 9,000 DOJ attorneys who seek pay for overtime work and holiday work performed between 1992 and 1999.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today issued an opinion that explains, “The Doe plaintiffs are Department of Justice attorneys who sued the government for alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1945.” Today’s ruling rejects those claims on the merits.

“Blawg Review #74”: Available online here at “The Institute for Global Security Law and Policy.”

“Rap star loses Diddy name rights; Rap star Sean Combs is no longer to be called ‘Diddy’ in the UK after he agreed a settlement with a music producer already known by that name”: BBC News provides this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “Diddy Can’t Be Diddy in Britain.”

“Quality and Quantity on Appeal”: That’s the title of the current installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com.

“As his execution nears, an inmate opens up; The ex-crack addict asks: How much remorse is enough for crime?” The Houston Chronicle contains this article today.

“Brash GOP challenger presses Chafee in R.I.; Laffey stays close to Bush’s stances”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.

And USA Today reports today that “R.I. race a tussle for Senate’s most liberal Republican; Anti-tax upstart targets party maverick Chafee.”

“Post 9/11 Law: An Unfinished Journey.” CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen has this essay.