Available online from law.com: Marcia Coyle reports that “Class Action Changes Bring Quick Impact; More contract, tort actions in federal court.”

Law Professor Michael P. Ambrosio has an essay entitled “Disclaimer Would End Hubbub Over ‘Super’ and ‘Best’ Lawyers.”

And Brent Gurney and Jessica Waters have an essay entitled “D.C. Circuit to Clarify Bribery Statute.”

“Law chief wants new constitution”: The Telegraph (UK) today contains an article that begins, “Britain should seriously consider introducing a written constitution, Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, said yesterday.”

And The Guardian (UK) today contains an article headlined “Written constitution ‘a serious idea.’”

“Abortion Issue Heats Up in South Dakota”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered.”

“It Could Be Worse: Does the Constitution need to be rewritten?” In the October 16, 2006 issue of The New Republic, Law Professor Cass R. Sunstein has this review (pass-through link) of Law Professor Sanford Levinson‘s new book, “Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People Can Correct It).”

“How To Remove a Federal Judge”: Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith have this article in the October 2006 issue of The Yale Law Journal.

The publication also contains a response by Martin H. Redish titled “Good Behavior, Judicial Independence, and the Foundations of American Constitutionalism” and a reply by Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith titled “(Mis)Understanding Good-Behavior Tenure.”

In commentary from today’s issue of Legal Times: Thomas J. Moyer, Ohio’s Chief Justice, and Bert Brandenburg have an essay entitled “No Way To Choose: Big Money and Special Interests Are Warping Judicial Elections” (free access).

And Jonathan M. Starble has an essay entitled “Gimme An S” (free access) that begins, “As one of its final acts last term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Kansas v. Marsh, a case involving the constitutionality of a state death-penalty statute. The 5-4 decision exposed the deep divide that exists among the nation’s intellectual elite regarding one of society’s most troubling issues–namely, whether the possessive form of a singular noun ending with the letter s requires an additional s after the apostrophe.”

“Government Responds [to Ninth Circuit petition for rehearing en banc] in United States v. Ziegler”: Online today at “The Volokh Consipracy,” Orin Kerr has a post in which he writes, “The government’s brief reflects a basic misunderstanding of the Fourth Amendment, and in particular the meaning of the reasonable expectation of privacy test.”

The unanimous three-judge Ninth Circuit opinion that is the subject of a petition for rehearing en banc can be accessed at this link, while my earlier coverage of that ruling is here. Orin has posted the petition for rehearing en banc here, while the federal government’s response is here.

Orin’s series of posts on this case provide further examples of the subject that I discussed in my law.com essay from July 2006 headlined “Viewing Law Blogs as a Vast Amicus Brief.”

“Pastor’s jury-pool dismissal is upheld”: The Journal Gazette of Fort Wayne, Indiana last Thursday published an article that begins, “The Indiana Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a decision that an Allen County prosecutor did not violate a defendant’s rights by dismissing a potential juror because he was a pastor. The decision also affirmed the state Court of Appeals ruling last year that extended the protections against race and gender discrimination in jury selection to religion.”

You can access last Wednesday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Indiana at this link.

Additional coverage appears online at “Indiana Law Blog” and “Religion Clause.”

“GOP Raises Religion in Court Race, Calling Democrat an Atheist”: law.com today provides this report from Texas.

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit conducted rehearings en banc in various cases: Last week’s Ninth Circuit oral argument calendar can be accessed here, while details on the en banc cases and copies of the petition for rehearing en banc and any responses thereto can be accessed via this link.

Two of the cases reargued en banc last week are of particular interest. In United States v. Carty, No. 05-10200 (9th Cir.), the question presented is whether a criminal sentence within the range established by the proper application of the federal Sentencing Guidelines is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. Via this post at the “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog, you can access some of the briefs filed in connection with the rehearing. You can download the oral argument audio via this link (Windows Media format). Deputy Solicitor General Michael R. Dreeben argued on behalf of the United States.

A second case of interest reargued last week is United States v. Curtin, No. 04-10632 (9th Cir.). The question presented in that case was whether the Federal Rules of Evidence permit admission into evidence of the fact that a federal criminal defendant, charged with traveling across state lines to engage in a sex act with a minor, had in his possession a handheld computer containing textual stories involving sex between adults and minors. The original divided three-judge panel’s ruling can be accessed here, while my earlier coverage of that ruling appears here. You can download last week’s en banc oral argument in the case via this link (Windows Media format).

“Biography overstates its case: Earl Warren’s path to the Supreme Court.” Yesterday in The Chicago Tribune, Law Professor Dennis J. Hutchinson had this review of Jim Newton’s book “Justice for All: Earl Warren and the Nation He Made.”

“Text This: Words Alone Can Violate Federal Obscenity Laws.” That’s the title of the newest installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com.

“Yes, a scandal, but no sex; only Constitution is at risk”: Yesterday in The Houston Chronicle, columnist Cragg Hines had this op-ed.

“Retired justice O’Connor speaks of independence”: This article appeared yesterday in The Virginian-Pilot.

And today in The Sioux Falls (S.D.) Argus Leader, columnist David Kranz has an op-ed entitled “Ex-Supreme Court justice zeroes in on S.D. ballot issue on judges.”

“Area judge appointed to top federal committee”: The Topeka Capital-Journal today contains an article that begins, “Federal judge Deanell Reece Tacha, of Lawrence, has been appointed to a key spot on the top policy-making body for the federal court system, the Judicial Conference of the United States.”

In January 2004, Chief Judge Tacha participated in this blog’s “20 questions for the appellate judge” interview feature.

“Patent spat goes to court; Maryland’s largest biotech is before the Supreme Court seeking interpretation of patent licensing law”: This article appeared last Thursday in The Baltimore Sun.

“Antiabortion Campaign Waves Feminist Flag; The ballot box fight to preserve a tough South Dakota ban is framed as a women’s rights issue”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

“Good New Rules for Judges; Measures will increase impartiality and stave off congressional intrusion”: This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

You can access the new rules via this earlier post.

“Lawyer is denied promotion; Passed over for Navy promotion, a Guantanamo lawyer who has served with distinction says he will defend Osama bin Laden’s driver in civilian life once he leaves military service”: Carol Rosenberg had this article yesterday in The Miami Herald.

“Crimping citizens initiative, or not? Amendment 3 makes it harder to change the state’s Constitution and asks how direct our democracy will be.” This article appears today in The St. Petersburg Times.

“A New Glimpse Into Night of D.C. Slaying”: The Washington Post today contains a lengthy article that begins, “On the night of Aug. 2, Robert Wone called his wife, Kathy, at their home in Virginia, checking in as he walked to his downtown Washington office.”

“An Inspector General? Rep. James Sensenbrenner’s proposal to create a watchdog for the judiciary is a bad idea come too soon.” The Washington Post contains this editorial today.

My earlier law.com essay on this subject was headlined “Exaggerations Plague Debate Over Need for Judicial Inspector General.”

“Suing Over the CIA’s Red Pen; Retired Operative Says Agency Unfairly Edited His Book”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“California Prosecutor’s Novel Gets Her Bumped From a Case”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times. My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“Where Faith Abides, Employees Have Few Rights”: This lengthy article appears today in The New York Times.