“Pat Leahy, Judiciary Committee Chairman?” This editorial appears today in The Washington Times.

“Feds’ Power to Renege on Immunity May Be Tested in U.S. Supreme Court”: law.com provides this report.

“Judge Revokes Lay’s Conviction; Ruling Rankles Enron Workers, Investors”: This article will appear Wednesday in The Washington Post.

“Bush signs bill on detainee interrogation”: McClatchy Newspapers provide a report that begins, “President Bush signed legislation Tuesday establishing new rules for interrogating and trying suspected terrorists, but the fight over how to deal with detainees is far from over. The new law is already under attack in court, and no one is likely to be brought to trial under the new rules anytime soon. Even some lawmakers who voted for the legislation questioned its constitutionality.”

“Bali bombing suspect: I’m ‘doing fine’ in Guantanamo.” The Miami Herald provides this news update.

“U.K.’s ‘Sullivan‘ gives press more leeway to report”: Lee Levine has this essay online at the First Amendment Center.

And online at The Weekly Standard, Stephen Schwartz has an essay entitled “Kicking the Libel Crutch: It’s good news for journalists, bad news for Saudi terror financiers.”

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“Stand Up For Freedom: The ACLU Goes to Washington.” Online at Reason, Ronald Bailey has an essay in which he writes, “The mutual lovefest came to an end when Strossen noted that Scalia’s devotion of the right of privacy did not extend to applying the protections of the First and Fourth Amendments to what mature consenting adults choose to read and with whom they choose to live and share private sexual intimacy.”

Available today from National Review Online: Roger Clegg has an essay entitled “Discrimination Continues: On the Michigan front.”

William C. Duncan has an essay entitled “Friends With Benefits? State marriage amendments will not ban private contracts.”

And Andrew C. McCarthy has an essay entitled “Lynne Stewart Gets 28 Months for Aiding Terrorists: Welcome back to September 10th.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “Bush Signs Terrorism Tribunal Bill” and “With Interrogation Rules Set, U.S. Moves Ahead” (RealPlayer required).

Still dead, but now not guilty: The Houston Chronicle provides a news update headlined “Judge vacates Ken Lay’s Enron conviction.”

WSJ.com’s “Law Blog” provides access to today’s ruling along with a post titled “Judge Vacates Lay’s Conviction.”

“Suspicion Permeates Guantanamo”: The Associated Press provides this report.

Eugene Volokh at Marquette Law School: He has a post at this link about his visit, while the blog “Eminent Domain” provides additional coverage.

Can a federal civil rights action be brought, in the first instance, to challenge a prison disciplinary proceeding whose results both increased the duration of the prisoner’s confinement and also affected other conditions of confinement? As I explained in an appellate brief that I filed in 2001 after accepting a pro bono appointment from the Third Circuit in a prisoner’s civil rights case:

In Edwards, the Supreme Court ruled that a prisoner cannot bring a § 1983 claim challenging the result of a prison disciplinary proceeding that deprived the prisoner of good-time credits, thus postponing the prisoner’s release from prison, unless the prisoner had first succeeded in overturning the result of the disciplinary proceeding in a habeas corpus action. As a majority of federal appellate courts with decisions on point has recognized, the holding of Edwards applies only to discipline that is subject to challenge in a habeas corpus proceeding — namely, discipline that causes the inmate to serve a longer sentence. Section 1983 actions that challenge only prison conditions, rather than the fact or duration of imprisonment, are not subject to Edwards‘s holding.

After the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed a brief confessing error in the case, the Third Circuit ruled in my client’s favor. And, in 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Muhammad v. Close confirming the correctness of the foregoing understanding of the law.

Today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision that resolves another wrinkle on this issue: namely, what if the prison disciplinary proceeding both increased the length of the prisoner’s time to be served and worsened his conditions of confinement? Can all or any part of the results of the disciplinary proceeding be challenged in the first instance by means of a federal civil rights action?

Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi‘s opinion on behalf of a unanimous panel states:

What is not clear, however, is whether a prisoner who was subject to a single disciplinary proceeding that gave rise to two types of sanctions — one that affected the duration of his custody and the other that affected the conditions of his confinement — can, without needing to satisfy the favorable termination rule, maintain a § 1983 action aimed solely at the second type of sanction. We now resolve this open question and hold that, in “mixed sanctions” cases, a prisoner can, without demonstrating that the challenged disciplinary proceedings or resulting punishments have been invalidated, proceed separately with a § 1983 action aimed at the sanctions or procedures that affected the conditions of his confinement. But we also hold that he may only bring such an action if he agrees to abandon forever any and all claims he has with respect to the sanctions that affected the length of his imprisonment.

I am interested to learn whether this issue has arisen in any other circuits and, if so, whether their rulings are consistent with the ruling that the Second Circuit issued today.

Federal Circuit to Amend its mediation process: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today issued a news release entitled “Appointment of James M. Amend as Chief Circuit Mediator.”

“Court Rules Against Israeli Extremists”: The Associated Press provides this report. My earlier coverage is here.

“President Bush Signs Military Commissions Act of 2006”: The White House issued this transcript of the President’s remarks on signing the legislation. In addition, the White House has posted online a related Fact Sheet.

Meanwhile, at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Swift responses to new law on detainees.”

Programming note: As I previously noted here, this afternoon I will be delivering an appellate oral argument to a three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, holding court today at the Duane Morris LLP Moot Courtroom of the Temple University Beasley School of Law.

Because the case I’m arguing is 18th on today’s oral argument list, the court has graciously spared me from having to attend this morning’s oral argument session. In advance of the argument, I’ll be grabbing a quick lunch with Law Professor Dave Hoffman, who blogs at “Concurring Opinions.”

Additional posts will appear here later today.

“Taking Land or Just Borrowing It With Interest? Why are environmentalists in favor of compensating voluntary land use restrictions but not involuntary ones?” Online at Reason, Ronald Bailey has an essay that begins, “In November, citizens in twelve states will be voting on a variety of property rights initiatives that would limit eminent domain.”

D.C. Circuit rejects challenge to the designation of the web site Kahane.org as a Foreign Terrorist Organization: You can access today’s ruling at this link.

“Appeal in Cameron Diaz Case Rejected”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A photographer who took topless photos of Cameron Diaz when she was 19 and tried to coerce her into buying them back for $3.5 million after she became famous lost an appeal Monday challenging his conviction.”

You can access at this link yesterday’s ruling of California’s Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District.

“President Bush to Sign Military Commissions Bill”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Bush Signs Law on Terror Suspects.”

“Religion on Welfare: How Founding Father James Madison would view tax breaks and government funding for faith-based charities.” Brooke Allen has this op-ed today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Amendment No. 3 fails to safeguard public interest”: The St. Petersburg Times today contains an editorial that argues, “Voters are being asked to vote for an amendment that would require future amendments to the Florida Constitution receive at least 60 percent of the vote to be enacted. Yet Amendment 3 requires only a simple majority to pass. How intellectually consistent is that?”

“‘What is my crime?’ Case of an elderly Afghan freed after 3 1/2 years at Guantanamo raises questions about U.S. detentions.” This article appears today in The Chicago Tribune.

“Abortion Initiative Puts Focus on Girls’ Welfare; Backers and foes of Proposition 85 disagree on the ramifications of parental notification”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

“Lawyer Sentenced for Aiding Terrorist Client; 28 Months Is Far Less Than Prosecutors Sought”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Terrorist’s Lawyer Gets Two-Year Term; Lynne Stewart’s service and health are among the factors in a shorter sentence than sought.”

The New York Daily News contains an article headlined “Terror lawyer off light; 28 mos. – not 30 yrs. – for Lynne Stewart.”

The New York Post contains an article headlined “Wrist Slap for Smirk Jerk Terror Attorney.”

And Newsday reports that “Stewart gets 28 months on terror charge.”

In commentary, The Wall Street Journal contains an editorial entitled “The Sheik’s Apprentice: A lawyer who passed messages to terrorists gets off light” (free access).

And The New York Sun contains an editorial entitled “Stewart’s Sentence.”

“Warming Up to Torture? Bill Clinton’s call for court-approved ‘torture warrants’ hasn’t drawn the same outcry as a similar proposal from a few years back.” Law Professor Alan M. Dershowitz has this op-ed today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Victims’ Families Sentenced to Silence; Judge allows relatives of five who were killed to attend the trial only if they remain composed”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Supreme Court Turns Away Scouts Appeal; A lawsuit that failed in California courts had challenged Berkeley’s policy denying free dock space to a group that bans gays and atheists”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Top court rejects Sea Scouts’ appeal on rent subsidy.”

And in The Oakland Tribune, Josh Richman reports that “Berkeley prevails in Sea Scout decision; Supreme Court won’t review ruling upholding city’s revocation of group’s free berth for excluding gays, atheists.”

“Giordano Takes Appeal To U.S. Supreme Court”: Today in The Hartford Courant, Lynne Tuohy has an article that begins, “The lawyer for former Waterbury Mayor Philip A. Giordano has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review Giordano’s conviction on civil rights and other violations in connection with repeated sexual assaults of two young girls while he was in office.”

“Sen. Brownback’s Litmus Test: May a federal judge have lesbian friends?” This editorial appears today in The Washington Post.

“Five Years After Killing of Prosecutor, A Stumped FBI Asks the Public for Help”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “SEATTLE — Alone in the basement of his house and sitting in front his computer monitor, Thomas C. Wales was shot to death here five years ago. An assistant U.S. attorney, he specialized in prosecuting white-collar crime and was an ardent advocate of gun control. The shooter stood in Wales’s back yard at 10:40 p.m., fired several times through a window and disappeared. It may have been the first time in U.S. history that a federal prosecutor was killed in the line of duty.”

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer last week published articles headlined “FBI seeks help in Wales case; Author of letter, unidentified man are key elements” and “Pilot didn’t kill Wales, lawyer says; FBI to reveal new details today on prosecutor’s death 5 years ago.”

And The Seattle Times last Thursday published an article headlined “Five years later, FBI still after Wales’ killer.”

The FBI has this web page devoted to the investigation.

“53% of Voters Say They Back Va. Same-Sex Marriage Ban; Only Area Against Measure Is N.Va., According to Poll”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

And The Richmond Times-Dispatch today contains an article headlined “Opponents out-raise ban’s backers” that begins, “The leading group fighting a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage brought in nearly nine times as much money last month as the best-known supporters.”

“Sami’s Shame, and Ours”: Today in The New York Times, columnist Nicholas D. Kristof has an op-ed (TimesSelect temporary pass-through link) that begins, “There is no public evidence that Sami al-Hajj committed any crime other than journalism for a television network the Bush administration doesn’t like. But the U.S. has been holding Mr. Hajj, a cameraman for Al Jazeera, for nearly five years without trial, mostly at Guantanamo Bay.”