“Chief Justice Urges Pay Raise for Judges; Courts’ Viability at Stake, Roberts Says”: Robert Barnes will have this article Monday in The Washington Post.

“Next big test of power to seize property? The US Supreme Court will examine whether a private company can demand payment in exchange for not seizing private property.” Warren Richey will have this article Tuesday in The Christian Science Monitor.

“Five Years and Counting in Cuba: There’s still little clarity on the legal status of Guantanamo–and its prisoners.” This article will appear in the January 8, 2007 issue of U.S. News & World Report.

“The verdict that keeps on taking”: Today in The Boston Globe, columnist Jeff Jacoby has an op-ed that begins, “The big property rights story of 2005 was the Supreme Court’s ruling, in Kelo v. New London, that the Bill of Rights doesn’t prevent local governments from seizing private property by eminent domain and turning it over to private developers to generate ‘economic development’ or higher tax revenues. The anti-Kelo backlash was the big property rights story of 2006.”

“The Kennedy Factor on the Roberts Court”: In the Week in Review section of today’s edition of The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse has an article that begins, “The Supreme Court, having decided only four cases since the term began in October, has not exactly been living in the fast lane. But the pace is about to pick up.”

“Brian Nichols judge on a singular mission”: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Sunday will contain an article that begins, “His chambers are down a corridor removed from the commotion, up a flight and beyond three security checkpoints. It’s there that, for most of the last eight months, DeKalb County Superior Court Judge Hilton Fuller, along with a staff of two and rotating security guards, has set up what amounts to an exile from the outside world.”

The article goes on to report: “In his 24 years as a judge, Fuller has tried cases equally gruesome to the four slayings with which Nichols is charged, and he’s rendered decisions that have reverberated far beyond his courtroom. But never has the spotlight shone as glaringly on him as it does in the case of State of Georgia v. Brian Gene Nichols. Nichols is charged in the March 11, 2005, shooting deaths of Superior Court Judge Rowland Barnes and court reporter Julie Ann Brandau inside a Fulton County courtroom, sheriff’s deputy Hoyt Teasley outside the courthouse and customs agent David Wilhelm at Wilhelm’s Buckhead home. The trial takes place in the same courthouse from which Nichols escaped. It will be prosecuted by six attorneys from the Fulton County district attorney’s office who were colleagues of Barnes and Brandau. And, when trial opens Jan. 11, it will be covered by the national media and Court TV. The case is fraught with emotion. And Fuller is doing his best to shield himself from it.”

“Recent Flexing of Presidential Powers Had Personal Roots in Ford White House”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

“Appeals Court Rejects Brief Submitted by Ex-Judges”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

Liptak’s article contains some interesting comments from former D.C. Circuit Judge Abner J. Mikva, who was among the amici whose brief the D.C. Circuit rejected yesterday. According to the article:

Mr. Mikva said the rejection of his brief was motivated by personal animus, not politics. “It’s not political at all,” he said in an interview. “This was clearly aimed at me.”

The judges in the majority, Mr. Mikva said, were furious with him because he opposed allowing judges to accept free trips to resorts for seminars sponsored by private groups.

“They’re so close to retirement age,” Mr. Mikva said of the judges in the majority. “They really should grow up.”

It seems that even if the rejection of the amicus brief wasn’t intended as a personal affront to former Judge Mikva, the issue certainly has now become personal between him and his former colleagues still on that court.

The issue of judicial junkets is one that can give rise to strong feelings, but I hadn’t initially drawn any connection between yesterday’s rejection of an amicus brief in the Guantanamo detainees case and that issue. My earlier coverage of yesterday’s D.C. Circuit order can be accessed here.

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Jonathan Adler has a post titled “NYT on Judicial Amicus Brief Rejection.”

“Truth, Justice, Abortion and the Times Magazine”: Byron Calame, the Public Editor for The New York Times, will have this essay tomorrow in that newspaper. The focus of Calame’s essay is an article about El Salvador headlined “Pro-Life Nation” that was the cover story of The New York Times Magazine on April 9, 2006.

“Gerald Ford’s Affirmative Action”: Jeffrey Toobin has this op-ed today in The New York Times.

“For Guantanamo Review Boards, Limits Abound”: This article will appear Sunday in The New York Times.

“After 30 Years, Supreme Court History Project Turns a Final Page”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.

“Las Vegas judge under investigation; The 9th Circuit has hired a law firm to suggest action on James C. Mahan, sources say”: The Los Angeles Times today contains an article that begins, “The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has launched an investigation of a federal judge who awarded more than $4.8 million in judgments and fees without apparently disclosing his personal, political and business ties to those who benefited, two sources close to the inquiry told The Times. U.S. District Judge James C. Mahan of Las Vegas, a popular state judge who joined the federal bench in 2002 after his nomination by President Bush, was the subject of Times investigative reports in June.”

You can access Judge Mahan’s official U.S. Courts biography by clicking here.

“Racial ban back on for 3 colleges; Court rules admissions policies must comply with Prop 2 right away”: The Detroit News today contains an article that begins, “A federal appeals court ruled Friday night that Michigan’s three largest universities must immediately remove race and gender consideration from their admissions and financial aid decisions and fully comply with Proposal 2. The ruling of the three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals effectively overturned the six-month delay a lower court judge granted last week to the University of Michigan, Michigan State University and Wayne State University.”

The Detroit Free Press reports today that “U.S. panel rejects a delay for Prop 2; Affirmative action ban is upheld.”

And The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Court: Mich. Schools Can’t Admit on Race.”

Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton wrote last night’s decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel. Various pleadings filed in connection with the matter can be accessed via the home page of the Sixth Circuit’s web site.

“Review of inmate’s execution request; Can judges override wish to end appeals, set new sentencing?” Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“Judges Uphold Law on Inmate Religion”: The Associated Press provides this report. My earlier coverage appears here.

“The Bill of Wrongs: The 10 most outrageous civil liberties violations of 2006.” Dahlia Lithwick has this essay online today at Slate.

“Dictator Who Ruled Iraq With Violence Is Hanged for Crimes Against Humanity”: This article will appear Saturday in The New York Times.

“Appeals court reconsidering execution for Comer”: David Kravets of The Associated Press provides this report. My earlier coverage can be accessed here.

“What’s Wrong With Retired Federal Judges Filing a Friend-of-the-Court Brief?” Eugene Volokh has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

My earlier coverage is at this link.

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “U.S. Judge Weighs Saddam Request” and “U.S. Court Refuses to Spare Iraqi.”

In case you need one more reason to look forward to 2007: On January 23, 2007, Jan Crawford Greenburg’s new book — “Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court and America’s Future” — will be available for purchase. The book’s publisher, Penguin Press, offers a description of the book that begins, “Drawing on unprecedented access to the Supreme Court justices and their inner circles, acclaimed ABC News legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg offers an explosive, newsbreaking account of one of the most momentous political watersheds in recent American history.”

Because the book apparently really is newsbreaking in various respects, advance copies aren’t being distributed. But you can preorder (and also view the book’s cover) at Amazon.

“Official: Saddam to Be Executed Tonight.” The Associated Press provides this report.

And a related AP report headlined “Saddam Asks U.S. to Block Execution” begins, “Lawyers for Saddam Hussein on Friday made a last-minute appeal to an American court to avert execution in Iraq, asking a judge to block his transfer from U.S. custody to the hands of Iraqi officials.”

A busy day for Ray Luipa in the Fourth Circuit: In the second of two published opinions that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued today involving the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a three-judge panel divides over whether to reinstate certain claims asserted by a Virginia state prison inmate who sued to challenge his removal from the prison’s Ramadan observance program.

Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III issued a partial dissent that concludes, “It is unfortunate that a policy designed to respect the Ramadan fast for the profound observance that it is should become the means for potentially tying prisons up in knots. No one argues that a court should blindly accept any justification for a prison policy that interferes with religious exercise. But to substitute its own judgment for the accommodative judgment of prison administrators is just as bad.” You can access the complete 65-page ruling at this link.

“We hold that RLUIPA is a valid exercise of Congress’ spending power and that, because Virginia voluntarily accepted federal correctional funds, it cannot avoid the substantive requirements of RLUIPA.” So holds a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in an opinion that Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III issued today.

Today’s decision also holds: “With respect to sovereign immunity, we find that Congress unambiguously conditioned federal funds on a State’s consent to suit. Because that condition does not clearly and unequivocally indicate that the waiver extends to money damages, however, the Eleventh Amendment bars [the plaintiff’s] claim for monetary relief against the State.”

For those who must be in federal court on Tuesday, January 2, 2007: In a post from earlier today, I noted that various federal appellate courts have announced that they will be closed for business on Tuesday, January 2, 2007 in recognition of the National Day of Mourning for President Ford.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas today issued the following statement:

The Court decided this morning to remain open for business on Tuesday, January 2. The decision of the Court was made in part by the knowledge that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals will remain open and the press of Court business in the District of Kansas. The Court believes that we can best honor the memory of President Ford by continuing to do the people’s business.

The Tenth Circuit, meanwhile, which is closed again today due to the latest blizzard to strike Denver, has issued the following statement:

The nation has lost a great leader in President Gerald R. Ford this past week. We remember and honor him in memorial services and personal reminiscences. In the spirit of public service modelled by the late President Ford, the Tenth Circuit Courthouse in Denver, which has been particularly hard hit by the weather recently, will be open on Tuesday. We ask you all to honor the life and memory of President Ford as we express our gratitude for his life of service to this nation.

Those readers who simply must begin the new year by appearing in federal court on the first business day of January 2007 thus have the option of traveling to Denver, Colorado or the State of Kansas.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ends 2006 by granting rehearing en banc in four separate cases: You can access all four en banc orders via this link.

The grant of rehearing en banc that’s initially of most interest to me is today’s order in Comer v. Schriro. The three-judge panel’s divided ruling in that case was the subject of my law.com column from September 2006 headlined “When Can an Inmate ‘Volunteer’ for Death? 9th Circuit rejects a competent inmate’s decision to abandon legal challenge to his capital sentence.”

In that essay, I wrote:

I am confident that if the state of Arizona seeks further review in Comer’s case, either from an en banc 9th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court, last week’s divided decision holding that it violates the 8th Amendment to abide by the wishes of a so-called death penalty volunteer will be overturned. The three-judge panel majority’s unwillingness to allow an unconstitutional execution to occur may be admirable from a policy perspective, but it exceeds their power as Article III judges to issue a ruling in the absence of any actual case or controversy. For better or worse, Article III’s limits on judicial power contain no exceptions applicable to the death penalty or 8th Amendment challenges.

My earlier blog-based coverage of the Comer case can be accessed here and here.

“Court Won’t Consider Judges’ Arguments”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “An appeals court considering whether Guantanamo Bay detainees have constitutional rights said Friday that it will not accept arguments by seven retired federal judges who oppose a new U.S. anti-terrorism law.”

Seventh Circuit addresses the value of a saccharine claim that fountain Diet Coke isn’t only sweetened with NutraSweet brand aspartame: A putative class action initiated in Illinois state court but then removed by the defendant to federal court alleged that the Coca-Cola Company deceived Diet Coke consumers in Illinois by failing to disclose that fountain Diet Coke and bottled Diet Coke are not the same product because the fountain variety of the beverage contains a blend of the sweeteners aspartame and saccharin.

After the federal district court sustained subject-matter jurisdiction over the case but refused to certify a class action, the proposed class representative accepted a settlement of $650 but retained the right to appeal from the denial of class certification and the sustaining of federal court jurisdiction. Today, in an opinion by Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes, a unanimous three-judge Seventh Circuit panel holds that the federal district court did not err in concluding that the named plaintiff’s claim exceeded $75,000 in value on the date of removal and affirms the denial of class certification.

Four-day weekend: Various federal appellate courts have announced that they will be closed for business on Tuesday, January 2, 2007 in recognition of the National Day of Mourning for President Ford. Those courts that have thus far posted on the internet news of their closure on Tuesday are the D.C. Circuit, the Second Circuit, the Sixth Circuit, the Eighth Circuit, and the Federal Circuit.

Meanwhile, the Tenth Circuit is closed today due to the latest Denver blizzard.

Update: The Fifth Circuit’s web site has been updated to note that the court is officially closed on Tuesday but that oral arguments will proceed as scheduled in Houston. And according to this post from Lyle Denniston at “SCOTUSblog,” the U.S. Supreme Court will also be officially closed for business on Tuesday.

Second update: The First Circuit’s web site has been updated to note that the court will be closed Tuesday. And so has the Fourth Circuit’s web site and the Ninth Circuit’s web site.

Current judges remind former judges that former judges aren’t “judges” any longer: The majority on a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today issued an order that likely will strike many as rather petty. Today’s order states, in full:

Upon consideration of the unopposed motion of retired federal jurists for leave to file brief amici curiae in support of petitioners regarding the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the lodged brief, it is

ORDERED that the motion for leave to file be denied. See Advisory Opinion No. 72, Committee on Codes of Conduct, Judicial Conference of the United States (“Judges should insure that the title ‘judge’ is not used in the courtroom or in papers involved in litigation before them to designate a former judge, unless the designation is necessary to describe accurately a person’s status at a time pertinent to the lawsuit.”).

The Clerk is directed to return to movant-amici curiae the lodged brief.

Circuit Judge Judith W. Rogers issued a short statement noting her disagreement with the order rejecting the amicus brief. It is an interesting question whether the referenced Advisory Opinion, which says that former judges shouldn’t be referred to as “judge” in the courtroom or in papers filed in litigation, was intended to prevent former judges from being referred to as “former judges.”

At least the policy shouldn’t prevent a former judge from operating a web log titled “X-Judge.”

Update: Via “SCOTUSblog,” you can access the rejected amicus brief at this link.

Former U.S. Air Force enlistee who viewed Osama bin Laden as a “hero” loses Sixth Circuit appeal challenging federal criminal conviction for having made false statements on application to become a baggage screener for the Transportation Security Administration: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit at this link.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is reporting: Today’s newspaper contains articles headlined “Teen expelled for rap lyrics reaches $60,000 settlement” and “North Side adult theater exhausting its legal appeals; Garden Theater advocates could ask U.S. Supreme Court to review First Amendment case.”

“Justices rebuff alumni; Association cannot challenge Milton Hershey School in court”: The Harrisburg Patriot-News contains this article today.

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“N.J. court rejects Neulander appeal; The ex-Cherry Hill rabbi said barred testimony led to his trial being unfair”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

The Newark Star-Ledger reports today that “Murderous rabbi loses his bid for a third trial.”

And The Courier-Post of Cherry Hill, New Jersey reports that “Neulander loses bid for retrial.”

My earlier coverage appears at this link.