“Marriage vote suit delivered to SJC; Romney, 10 others see constitution violation”: The Boston Globe contains this article today.

The Boston Herald today contains an article headlined “Gov to judges: Put gay marriage to a vote.”

And The New York Times reports that “Massachusetts Governor Sues to Compel Vote on Same-Sex Marriage Amendment.”

“Despite a Year of Ire and Angst, Little Has Changed on Wiretaps”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

“Times Seeks to Bar Review of Phone Data”: Today in The New York Times, Adam Liptak has an article that begins, “The New York Times asked the Supreme Court yesterday to bar a federal prosecutor from reviewing the phone records of two of its reporters. The records, lawyers for The Times said, would allow the government to learn the identities of many of the reporters’ confidential sources.”

“Minimal clothing, ban on touching upheld”: Yesterday’s edition of The Louisville Courier-Journal contained an article that begins, “Louisville’s efforts to regulate strip clubs got a boost yesterday when the Kentucky Supreme Court upheld a McCracken County ordinance requiring dancers to wear minimal covering and quit touching customers.”

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

“Dorit Beinisch proposes U.S.-style Supreme Court”: Haaretz provides a report that begins, “Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch wants to make the Israeli Supreme Court more like its American counterpart by sharply reducing the number of cases it hears, thereby enabling it to focus solely on cases that involve major legal principles.”

“Graham goes back on attack over judicial pick”: Yesterday’s edition of The State of Columbia, South Carolina contained an article that begins, “President Bush again has sent the Senate the nomination of William Haynes, the Pentagon’s top lawyer, to the federal appellate court over South Carolina, a controversial pick senators twice have declined to support. An exasperated U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., doesn’t quite understand why.”

“Jurisprudes?: What’s wrong with supersexy ads in a legal magazine?” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Senate Democrats Revive Demand for Classified Data”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “Seeking information about detention of terrorism suspects, abuse of detainees and government secrecy, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are reviving dozens of demands for classified documents that until now have been rebuffed or ignored by the Justice Department and other agencies.”

The AP is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Businesses Split on Patent Case“; “Governor Seeks to Force Marriage Issue“: and “Court to Hear Google-Newspaper Fight.”

“New York Times Turns to Supreme Court”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The New York Times asked the Supreme Court on Friday to block the government from reviewing the phone records of two reporters in a leak investigation about a terrorism-funding probe.”

Greetings from Washington, DC: My wife, son, and I, and the family with whom we are traveling, were fortunate to receive an informative behind-the-scenes tour of the U.S. Supreme Court building this afternoon from someone who doesn’t want to be identified on the blog.

Thereafter, we had the pleasure of seeing two Smithsonian museums: the National Museum of the American Indian and the National Air and Space Museum. Tomorrow, we’ll be in the vicinity of the White House. We plan to visit some monuments and also, perhaps, to see another Smithsonian museum.

Programming note: My family and I will be spending much of today and tomorrow doing tourist-like things in the Washington, DC area. As a result, additional blog posts will appear here sporadically if at all until Saturday night.

“Hope for bipartisan nominations: Paradoxically, the return of divided government may mark the return of rationality on judicial nominees.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Hinckley’s Mother To Be His Sole Escort; Judge Allows Visits Despite Father’s Illness”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

Also available online are Tuesday’s opinion and order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

“Three networks ask court to halt FCC crackdown; Fox calls the agency’s steps against indecency a radical expansion of the rules; The case could go to the Supreme Court”: Jim Puzzanghera has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Now online: slide-rule celebrities; Economists who author blogs are drawing fans who see nothing dismal about the discipline.” The Los Angeles Times today contains an article that begins, “Fame found Tyler Cowen on the back seat of an airport bus.”

“USDA may have to consider monkeys’ feelings, says court”: The Central Valley Business Times provides this report.

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

Available online from law.com: An article reports that “Vaunted Legal Scholar Switches Sides in Supreme Court Patent Case; Stanford’s Mark Lemley decides the current ‘obviousness’ standards may be fine after all.”

In other news, “Ga. Court Readies for Media Blitz Over Trial of Alleged Courthouse Shooter.”

And next week’s installment of my “On Appeal” column is headlined “What Do the Federal Appellate Procedure Rule Changes Mean for You?” Two amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure officially take effect on December 1, 2006, and you can read more about them here and here.

The New York Times is reporting: Today’s newspaper contains an article headlined “A Growing Plea for Mercy for the Mentally Ill on Death Row.”

And Adam Liptak reports that “Court Rules for Kentucky on Executions.” My earlier coverage appears at this link.

Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner and Law Professor Brian Leiter debate pragmatic adjudication: “The Faculty Blog” of the University of Chicago Law School provides a post titled “What Do and What Should Judges Do?” You can download an mp3 podcast of the debate between Judge Posner and Professor Leiter via this link.

At 15 minutes and 40 seconds into the mp3 audio recording, Professor Leiter finally allows Judge Posner to speak.

“Courts – Linking to 7th Circuit opinions can be tricky.” Marcia Oddi of “The Indiana Law Blog” — a blog that frequently links to Seventh Circuit opinions — provides this post following-up on my related post from yesterday.

“Scalia the Civil Libertarian? As it conducts the war on terror, the Bush administration may find the conservative justice a bigger obstacle than the Democratic Party.” Scott Turow will have this Idea Lab essay (TimesSelect temporary pass-through link) in this upcoming Sunday’s issue of The New York Times Magazine.

“Same-sex couple seeks divorce in R.I.; The case – involving a Providence couple who got married in Fall River in 2004 – could set a legal precedent in Rhode Island”: This article appears today in The Providence Journal, which has also posted online a PDF image of the couple’s Massachusetts marriage certificate.

And The Associated Press reports that “Gay R.I. Couple Files for Divorce.”

“Kentucky Supreme Court says lethal injection legal”: The Courier-Journal of Louisville provides a news update that begins, “The Kentucky Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected two Death Row inmates’ argument that execution by lethal injection violates the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment.”

The Lexington Herald-Leader provides a news update headlined “State’s high court upholds lethal injection for executions.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Ky. Court Upholds Lethal Injection.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Kentucky at this link.

Divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel reinstates challenge to the USDA’s decision not to adopt a Draft Policy providing guidance to zoos and research facilities on how to ensure the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates in order to comply with the federal Animal Welfare Act: Here’s a ruling that is sure to merit mention at the “Animal Law Blog.”

Today a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion that begins:

Plaintiffs, who include the Animal Legal Defense Fund (“ALDF”), the Animal Welfare Institute (“AWI”), and three individuals, challenge the United States Department of Agriculture’s (“USDA”) decision not to adopt a Draft Policy that would have provided guidance to zoos, research facilities, and other regulated entities in how to ensure the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates in order to comply with the federal Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”). Plaintiffs challenge the decision not to adopt the Draft Policy under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) as arbitrary and capricious. The district court did not reach the merits of plaintiffs’ suit because it determined that the USDA’s decision did not constitute reviewable final agency action. We disagree. We hold that at least one of the plaintiffs has standing under Article III of the Constitution, and we conclude that the district court has authority under the APA to review the USDA’s decision not to adopt the Draft Policy.

Circuit Judge William A. Fletcher wrote the majority opinion, in which Senior U.S. District Judge H. Russel Holland of the District of Alaska joined.

Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski issued a dissenting opinion. His dissent concludes:

The majority expands the law of standing beyond recognition. It unmoors administrative law from sound principles of judicial review, and insinuates the federal courts into sensitive policy judgments that are the exclusive province of the Executive Branch. It ignores the teachings of the Supreme Court and misapplies the precedents it relies on. It will cause no end of mischief. Count me out.

At first glance, this case appears to be a strong candidate for rehearing en banc.

“I do not believe that every error by a panel is enbancable. A panel is entitled to err without the full court descending upon it.” So writes Circuit Judge Alan D. Lourie, in an opinion issued today concurring in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit‘s decision to deny rehearing en banc in Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. Six separate opinions accompany the denial of rehearing en banc, including a dissent from that court’s newest judge, Kimberly Ann Moore.

In praise of those few U.S. Courts of Appeals that routinely treat as published opinions their orders granting rehearing en banc: Following-up on my lengthy post from yesterday that criticized the manner in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit provides online access to its published opinions, this post offers a suggestion that would improve the quality of information freely available online from nearly all of the federal appellate courts.

At present, it appears that only the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Ninth Circuits routinely post online as published opinions their orders granting rehearing en banc. Two recent examples can be accessed here and here.

The Ninth Circuit is especially deserving of praise, as it offers on its web site a compilation of the questions presented in the cases in which rehearings en banc have been granted along with access to the briefs filed in seeking en banc rehearing.

The Eleventh Circuit also deserves honorable mention, because its web site offers a listing of en banc issues. And the Fourth Circuit also deserves some praise because after rehearing is granted, that court notes the grant of rehearing on the face of the original decision in which rehearing had been granted (see here for an example).

Unfortunately, the vast majority of federal appellate courts fails to post online as published opinions those courts’ orders granting rehearing en banc in a case. Instead, what one more commonly sees are orders denying rehearing en banc, accompanied by for-publication dissenting statements, which are posted online as published opinions.

Yesterday in the D.C. Circuit‘s Abigail Alliance case, the absurdity of the approach that most of the federal appellate courts follow was made apparent for all to see. The D.C. Circuit posted online as a published opinion the panel’s explanation of its reasons for denying panel rehearing. But the D.C. Circuit did not post online as a published opinion the court’s order granting rehearing en banc in the case. Indeed, it was not until this morning (see my post immediately below) that the D.C. Circuit’s order granting rehearing en banc became available over that court’s password-required PACER system. And, in the post immediately below, I have provided public access to yesterday’s order granting rehearing en banc.

My original post about yesterday’s decision denying panel rehearing noted the absence of any explanation of the disposition of the federal government’s alternate request for rehearing en banc. Another law blogger depicted yesterday’s D.C. Circuit developments as a loss for the federal government, which was correct based on available information but absolutely incorrect once the previously unknown grant of the federal government’s petition for rehearing en banc became public.

In sum, all federal appellate courts should begin to follow the approach of the Fifth and Ninth Circuits in posting online as published opinions those courts’ orders granting rehearing en banc. A federal appellate court’s decision to grant rehearing en banc in a case is a significant development that should not remain hidden from the public inside a password-required PACER docket.

Update: I’m pleased to report that the Eleventh Circuit deserves the same amount of praise as the Fifth and Ninth Circuits for routinely posting online its orders granting rehearing en banc in the same manner that the Eleventh Circuit posts online its published opinions.

Access online the D.C. Circuit’s order granting rehearing en banc in the substantive due process access to experimental potentially life-saving drugs case: I obtained a copy of the D.C. Circuit‘s order entered yesterday granting rehearing en banc in the case from that court’s PACER system, and I have uploaded a copy of the order to this link.

Sixth Circuit reinstates First Amendment retaliation claim asserted by former elected school superintendent for Morgan County, Tennessee, who lost his job after a newspaper reported that he would be speaking at a convention sponsored by a church with a predominantly homosexual congregation: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit at this link.

“Pataki Rebuked on Confining Sex Offenders”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

The Times Union of Albany, New York today contains an article headlined “Court: Pataki violated rights of sex offenders; Governor promises to call Legislature back to change law after hearings ordered.”

And Joseph Goldstein of The New York Sun reports that “Governor To Push For New Law On Sex Offenders.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Court of Appeals of New York, that State’s highest court, at this link.

“Journalist denied holiday furlough from prison; Reprieve might ease pressure on activist to give in, judge says”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “A federal judge has denied a Thanksgiving furlough to Josh Wolf, the activist and freelance journalist who has been in prison more than three months for refusing to surrender a videotape of a San Francisco political protest.”

“Court says Israel must register same-sex marriages; The ruling, which affects those wed abroad, reignites a debate over gay rights”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

And The Jerusalem Post reports that “Gay marriages can now be registered.”

“Whites-Only Rule At B.U. Is Booed; In protest against affirmative action, GOP club offers aid for Caucasians”: The Harvard Crimson today contains an article that begins, “Criticizing scholarships reserved for minority students, the Boston University College Republicans announced Monday that the group will be awarding a $250 scholarship that requires applicants to be at least 25 percent Caucasian.”

And The Daily Free Press of Boston University reported yesterday that “BU group offers white scholarship; Award meant to protest race-based scholarships.”

“Gay Couples Demand Marriage; Take Their Appeal To State High Court”: Today in The Hartford Courant, Lynne Tuohy has an article that begins, “Lawyers for eight same-sex couples seeking the right to marry will file their brief in the state Supreme Court today, setting the stage for an epochal legal battle on whether Connecticut permits gay marriage.”

“Many fume over hot ad in lawyers newspaper”: The Boston Globe today contains this article, which features a large image of the ad in question.