“Diner’s acquittal sparks debate: Is the customer always right? Yes. No. Maybe. It depends on who you ask, and how much food is left on the plate.” This article appears today in The St. Petersburg Times. My earlier post from yesterday on this subject was titled “Who says high-priced lawyers aren’t worth it?”

“Post-Sept. 11 Death Benefits Disputed”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “As the World Trade Center burned, Glenn Winuk rushed to the scene from his law office to offer his skills as a veteran paramedic. He died with surgical gloves on and a medic’s bag at his side. A card in his wallet identified him as a volunteer firefighter. ‘He died a hero,’ said his brother, Jay. Yet, in the eyes of the federal government, he did not die in the line of duty. In a decision sent to Winuk’s parents days before the fifth anniversary of his death, the Justice Department rejected their application for a $250,000 benefit for public safety officers killed on the job.”

Newsday reported last month that “Firefighter recognized locally but not by feds,” while The Hill reported last month that “Family of fallen 9/11 rescuer fights DOJ.” And in related coverage, The Journal News of Westchester, New York last month published an article headlined “P.R. exec mourns brother by creating 9/11 memorials.”

Before he died trying to save the lives of others on September 11, 2001, Glenn Winuk was a partner at the law firm Holland & Knight LLP. Two recent relevant press releases from that law firm can be accessed here and here.

“Sanctioning Lawlessness”: Law Professor David Cole has this essay online at The Nation.

“Judged Dred: What a new book on the Dred Scott case teaches us about scapegoating courts.” Scott Lemieux has this essay online at The American Prospect.

The book in question is Mark A. Graber’s “Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil.”

“The Constitution, Writ or Wrong: The habeas corpus debate illustrates a dangerous trend in legal ignorance.” Adam J. White has this essay online at The Weekly Standard.

“Court grants two cases”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Killer’s Death Sentence Back in Court.”

You can access today’s U.S. Supreme Court Order List at this link.

In today’s mail: The book “Saddam on Trial: Understanding and Debating the Iraqi High Tribunal,” by Michael P. Scharf and Gregory S. McNeal. A letter in the package describes the book as “the first ever ‘Blog-to-Book’ initiative in academia.”

“N.D. Officials Sue NCAA Over Nickname”: The AP provides a report that begins, “State officials filed a lawsuit Friday against the NCAA to challenge its restrictions on the University of North Dakota’s Fighting Sioux nickname.”

“Same-Sex Rite Stalls Judge Nomination”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A Republican senator is holding up a Michigan judge’s nomination to the federal bench because she reportedly helped lead a commitment ceremony for a lesbian couple in Massachusetts four years ago.”

You can access at this link the bio of Judge Janet T. Neff, who currently serves on the Michigan Court of Appeals, Third District.

Linda Greenhouse podcast: Available here, via “SCOTUSblog.” I haven’t yet listened to hear whether the latest kerfuffle is discussed.

Update: The podcast begins with discussion of Greenhouse’s book, “Becoming Justice Blackmun: Harry Blackmun’s Supreme Court Journey.” I’m on the record as enjoying the book — now available in paperback — this past July while at the “beach” in Brainerd, Minnesota.

Second update: Tom Goldstein does ask Greenhouse about her Radcliffe College speech at about 12 minutes and 30 seconds into the podcast. My earlier coverage of that controversy can be found at this link. She adheres to her views expressed in that earlier speech and expresses surprise at the controversy that has arisen.

“Supreme Exposure: TV cameras are coming to the Supreme Court.” Conor Clarke has this essay online today at The New Republic.

My earlier essay for law.com on this topic was headlined “Should Congress Mandate Supreme Court TV? Will original understanding go high-definition?”

On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “U.S. Refuses to Classify Alleged Bomber as Terrorist” and “NYSE Pay Trial Finally Going to Court” (RealPlayer required).

“Same-sex marriage ban upheld in ruling; Court says change can come only from voters or Legislature”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

The New York Times reports today that “California Court Upholds State’s Ban on Same-Sex Marriage.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Appeals Court Upholds State’s Ban on Same-Sex Marriage; Dissenting justice says the 2-1 ruling, which will go to the California Supreme Court, diminishes the ‘humanity’ of homosexuals.”

Claire Cooper, legal affairs writer for The Sacramento Bee, reports that “Court upholds ban on gay marriage; State appellate ruling says the prohibition is not discriminatory.”

In The San Jose Mercury News, Howard Mintz has an article headlined “Another setback for gay unions; State appellate justices say legislature or voters should settle controversy.”

And in The Oakland Tribune, Josh Richman reports that “Same-sex marriage handed a setback; Gay advocates vow to take case to state’s top court after ban upheld.”

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“Judge Considering Constitutionality of Lethal Injection Posing Tough Questions; Prosecutors and defense attorneys are wary after being asked to suggest ways the manner of execution can be improved”: Henry Weinstein has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Bush cites authority to bypass FEMA law; Signing statement is employed again”: Charlie Savage has this article today in The Boston Globe.

“Bush Policy Irks Judges in West; Rulings Criticize Agencies for Not Protecting the Environment”: The Washington Post contains this article today.

“Preserving a Donor’s Intent: The Daniels Fund is digitizing the late executive’s business and personal correspondence to help make sure future board members understand his wishes.” This article (free access) appears today in The Wall Street Journal. According to the article, “The fund’s move reflects growing concern over ‘donor intent’ at charities — whether later fund executives lose touch with the values and intentions of founders. In 2002, the Hershey Trust, under pressure from Pennsylvania authorities, scuttled the sale of Hershey Foods to William Wrigley after a storm of protest about whether the sale violated founding donor Milton S. Hershey’s intent. Controversy also followed a court decision allowing the Barnes Foundation art collection to move to downtown Philadelphia from a suburb, which critics say violated the founder’s will.”

“Justices make points by questioning lawyers; High court may hint at views in oral arguments”: Joan Biskupic has this article today in USA Today.

“Panels debate laws on gays in military”: This article appears today in The Yale Daily News.

“Law Profs Overhaul 1st Year Courses”: The Harvard Crimson today contains an article that begins, “The Harvard Law faculty unanimously approved sweeping revisions to the school’s first-year curriculum in a closed-door meeting yesterday afternoon, professors confirmed last night.”

“Bonds’ trainer freed from prison for now”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

And The New York Times reports today that “Bonds’s Trainer Is Released From Prison.”

“Voter-ID rules suspended; 9th Circuit blocks Arizona’s Prop. 200”: This article appears today in The Arizona Republic, along with articles headlined “Voter-ID action called victory for poor“; “What Valley residents have to say“; and “Proposition 200 at a glance.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Appeals Court Blocks Ariz. Voter ID Law.”

My earlier coverage appears at this link.