“Opponent of racial preferences takes quest to Michigan; Public colleges less diverse, but initiative backers tout fairness”: The San Francisco Chronicle contains this article today.

And Time.com provides a report headlined “Campaign ’06: A Fight Over Affirmative Action in Michigan; The man behind the California racial preference ban is back at it again, this time in Michigan, where his ballot initiative could prevail over a strong, organized opposition.”

“Perdue’s pick for court to rattle ranks”: This article appears today in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

And The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court candidates duke it out in bitter debate.”

“Pitcairn islanders lose appeal; Six men found guilty of child rape and indecent assault on the remote Pacific island of Pitcairn have failed in their appeals against conviction”: BBC News provides this report.

The New Zealand Herald provides a news update headlined “Pitcairn Islanders lose final appeal.”

Reuters reports that “Her Majesty’s tiniest jail set for island rapists.”

And The Associated Press reports that “British court rejects Pitcairn appeal.”

Update: You can access the ruling of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council at this link.

The Associated Press is reporting: An article is headlined “Colombian Supreme Court: grabbing a woman’s behind is a crime.”

And from North Carolina, “Judge declines to block public financing of appellate court races.”

“Sandra Day O’Connor shares memories at Utah women’s conference”: The Salt Lake Tribune provides this news update.

“Supreme Court hears arguments on legal immunity for feds”: GovExec.com provides a report that begins, “The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday about the extent of federal employees’ immunity from on-the-job lawsuits.”

“Ninth Circuit Split Inevitable, Tashima Tells Gathering”: This article appears in today’s issue of Metropolitan News-Enterprise.

“High stakes in high court tobacco hearing; Ruling could have big impact on many punitive damages awards”: MarketWatch provides this report.

“Terror suspect alleges torture, seeks dismissal of charges”: Tuesday’s edition of The Miami Herald will contain an article that begins, “Jose Padilla, the former enemy combatant now accused of joining a suspected South Florida terror cell, says a federal judge should throw out an indictment against him because he was ‘tortured by the United States government without cause or justification.'”

“GOP seeks to benefit from gay marriage ruling”: McClatchy Newspapers provide this article.

“Supreme Court considers cases from Michigan inmates”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Supreme Court case: Are jury awards too high? The High Court hears Tuesday a case where the widow of an Oregon smoker got $79.5 million.” Warren Richey will have this article Tuesday in The Christian Science Monitor.

“Whimsical Punishment: The Vice of Federal Intervention, Constitutionalization, and Substantive Due Process in Punitive Damages Law.” Jenny Miao Jiang has this fortuitously-timed article (abstract with link for download) online at SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“).

“Lost in the fog”: Last week in The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, columnist Linda P. Campbell had an op-ed that begins, “The ruling exonerating Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht of ethical violations gives new definition to the word tortuous.”

Where are the writers from The Late Show with David Letterman when you need them? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued documents titled “Top 10 Reasons Why Formal Briefs Are Rejected” and “Top 10 Reasons Why Motions Are Rejected.” Predictably, the answers the court has provided fall far short of achieving their comedic potential.

Corresponding with the end of daylight savings time, the time for releasing same-day SCOTUS transcripts falls back: On the first day of the October 2006 oral argument session, same-day transcripts were posted online at 2:15 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. It’s now 4:40 p.m. on the first day of the November 2006 oral argument session, and no same-day transcripts have yet been posted online for today’s argued cases.

Update: At 5:18 p.m., “SCOTUSblog” had this post noting that the transcripts of today’s oral arguments are now available online. Here’s hoping that the transcript of tomorrow’s punitive damages oral argument appears online a bit earlier in the day.

“Panel wants lawyers disbarred; 2 accused of extortion in Demoulas battle”: On Saturday, I linked here to an article published that day in The Boston Globe.

You can access the recent ruling of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers at this link. The “Legal Profession Blog” covers the ruling in posts titled “The Massachusetts Decision“; “More on the Massachusetts Discipline Matter Alleging Extortion Plot“; and “Massachusetts Update.”

“Let’s have order in court coverage: It can start with clarity from bench.” Today in The Boston Herald, Paul J. Martinek has an op-ed that begins, “In recent remarks to the National Italian American Foundation, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia expressed disenchantment over the way courts are covered by the news media.”

“Latham is the ‘in’ spot for high court clerks; Firm’s higher profile lures six clerks; academia, government lure others”: Marcia Coyle has this article in the latest issue of The National Law Journal (via the currently all-italics “Above the Law“).

“Gobs of judicial (and law-firm) time have been squandered by the combination of sloppy drafting, repeated violations of Rule 65(d), and inattention to all sources of subject-matter jurisdiction. If these lawyers were physicians, their patients would be dead.” So writes Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in an opinion issued today in Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. American Express Company. This trademark litigation arose when Blue Cross sued American Express after AmEx decided to issue its own Blue Card.

“Argument Tuesday 10/31/06: Punishing Big Tobacco”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

Divided three-judge Eighth Circuit panel affirms preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of measures enacted in 2005 revising South Dakota’s law on informed consent to abortion: You can access today’s ruling at this link.

The majority opinion’s discussion of likelihood of success on the merits concludes, “Because the challenged disclosures could be found to violate both the First Amendment rights of physicians and the due process rights of women seeking abortion, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding at this preliminary stage that Planned Parenthood demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.”

Earlier, the majority opinion noted: “The district court found that the challenged disclosures express the state’s ideology on an ‘unsettled medical, philosophical, theological, and scientific issue.’
Planned Parenthood of South Dakota v. Rounds, 375 F. Supp. 2d 881, 887 (D.S.D. 2005) (citing Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)). The court concluded that the requirement that physicians give these messages likely violates their First Amendment rights against compelled speech and that Planned Parenthood had shown that it was likely to succeed on the merits.”

The statute that is the subject of today’s decision can be viewed at this link. A front page article headlined “S.D. Makes Abortion Rare Through Laws And Stigma; Out-of-State Doctors Come Weekly to 1 Clinic” that The Washington Post published in December 2005 mentioned the statute.

“ABA: Wallace is not qualified; Appellate judge seat is at stake.” This interesting article appears today in The Biloxi Sun Herald.

“Court denies antitrust immunity case”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

You can access today’s U.S. Supreme Court Order List at this link. The Court issued no grants of review today.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court Denies Appeal of Rape Sentence.”

“Jayson Williams on Supreme Court docket”: The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger’s news blog provides this post. Via this link, you can view live the oral argument, scheduled to get underway at 10 a.m. eastern time before the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

“Duke case could bring changes; Key question is how EPA should measure pollution”: The Charlotte Observer today contains an article that begins, “Duke Energy Corp. and environmental groups are scheduled to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday about how to interpret the federal Clean Air Act, a case that could force utilities to add modern pollution controls to older power plants.”

“Court revives voter-ID measure; Attorney for plaintiffs might take their case to U.S. Supreme Court”: This article appears today in The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch.

In the November 13, 2006 issue of The Nation: Jeremy Scahill and Garrett Ordower have an essay entitled “From Whitewater to Blackwater.”

Jennifer Baumgardner has an essay entitled “Driving Planned Parenthood.”

And Jonathan Schell has an essay entitled “The Torture Election.”

In the November 6, 2006 issue of The Weekly Standard: William Kristol has an essay entitled “Of Senators and Judges: There is still time to remind voters of what is at stake as they cast their Senate votes.”

And Law Professor David M. Wagner, author of the “Ninomania” blog, has an essay entitled “Gay Marriage Lite: New Jersey’s high court doesn’t quite go all the way.”

Available today from National Review Online: Matthew J. Franck has an essay entitled “Adam Cohen, Editorial Pretzel: Taking on nonexistent right-wing judicial activism on the Supreme Court.”

And Michael O’Brien has an essay entitled “Race-Colored Classes: The University of Michigan badly needs MCRI.”

“Making the Most of Appellate Oral Argument”: That’s the title of this week’s installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com.

“Roberts, Alito Will Decide Punitive Damage Caps at High Court”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News provides this report.

“New gay rights leave Catholics with questions; Church struggles for answers”: This article appears today in The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger.

The Washington Times today contains articles headlined “Gay ruling may boost N.J. values vote” and “Colorado faces gay split decision.”

And in The Boston Globe, Cathy Young has an op-ed entitled “Marriage and unions.”

“When $25,000 is the limit on a life: State funding cap restricts efforts to ensure justice, experts say.” The Austin American-Statesman contains this article today, part two of a two-part series titled “Writs gone wrong.”

Today’s newspaper also contains related articles headlined “Older cases can be frustrating for new attorneys; It’s an uphill battle for new lawyers who believe old writs were poorly done“; “Attorney rolls out new appeals, old arguments; He was rebuked for using issues ‘nearly verbatim’ from one filing to another“; and “Lawyer’s writs come up short; Peers say he violated key doctrine by omitting crucial information from filings.”

“American’s journey to extremism: How Adam Gadahn became tied to terror.” This article appears today in The Chicago Tribune.