“Religion for Captive Audiences, With Taxpayers Footing the Bill”: This lengthy article will appear Sunday in The New York Times.

“Brown v. Board of Education, Second Round”: Adam Liptak will have this article Sunday in the Week in Review section of The New York Times.

“Police: Chi. Gunman Angry Over Invention.” The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The gunman who fatally shot three people in a law firm’s high-rise office before he was killed by police felt cheated over an invention, authorities said Saturday.”

“Pay-raise fallout fails to dim interest in Pa. Supreme Court”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Judge Plans Double Appeal; Ex-Chief Justice Not Going Quietly”: Today in The Hartford Courant, Lynne Tuohy has an article that begins, “Former Chief Justice William J. Sullivan will appeal both his 15-day suspension and the findings last month by the Judicial Review Council that he violated the code of ethics in secretly withholding release of a controversial ruling. The appeal will prolong an episode that prompted an unprecedented crisis of confidence in the judiciary and created yet another uncomfortable chapter for Sullivan’s colleagues on the high court.”

And in somewhat related news, The Connecticut Post reports today that “Justice search widens; Rell to look past judges on state’s highest court.”

“MHSAA’s latest appeal denied in Circuit Court”: The Grand Rapids Press yesterday contained an article that begins, “For the second time in two years, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati denied the Michigan High School Athletic Association’s appeal for an en banc hearing — one before the entire panel of 13 judges — to keep from having to switch when six of its sports seasons are played. Now, for the next round of this civil lawsuit, the MHSAA is expected to file a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to see if it will consider hearing another appeal.”

“Government wants Hamdan case dismissed”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“SJC rules on parental rights of lesbians; Woman is faulted for not adopting”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts at this link.

“Sen. Brownback May Lift Hold on Nominee”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a potential presidential candidate, said Friday he would lift his hold on a federal judicial nominee if she agrees to step aside from any case dealing with same-sex unions.”

Please vote for “Best Law Blog” in The 2006 Weblog Awards: The polls opened Thursday evening and will remain open through December 15th. “How Appealing” is currently in third place out of ten contestants. Those who believe in the primacy of international law will be delighted to learn that the blog currently in second place is operated by a law firm located in the United Kingdom.

You can vote once per computer, per web browser, every 24 hours. Simply click here to access the page where you can cast your vote.

“Ex-detainees seek right to sue Rumsfeld in abuse case; As noncitizens, the nine might not be allowed to pursue their claims in U.S. court, a judge suggests”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

The New York Times reports today that “Former Detainees Argue for Right to Sue Rumsfeld Over Torture.”

And The Washington Post reports that “U.S. Denies Liability in Torture Case; Attorney Urges Dismissal of Detainee Suit Against Officials.”

“Ignore and appoint: Recess appointments rob the Senate of its advice-and-consent role and violate the spirit of the Constitution.” The Los Angeles Times today contains this editorial.

“Man kills 3 in law office; Gunman dies in hostage standoff”: This article appears today in The Chicago Tribune, along with an article headlined “Commuters caught in chaos, panic.” In addition, the newspaper offers even more recently-issued news updates headlined “Law firm rampage has officials puzzled; Gunman’s motive, how he got past security questioned” and “2 attorneys made marks beyond firm.”

The Chicago Sun-Times today contains an article headlined “Rush-hour mayhem; Gunman with grudge kills 3 in law firm” that begins, “Zeroing in from about 25 yards away, a police sharpshooter Friday killed a gunman who had fatally shot three workers in a downtown patent law firm in a dispute over a toilet seat invention.” The newspaper also contains related articles headlined “‘He was always a smiling face’” and “Worker: ‘I was just hysterical.’”

“Commute This Sentence: A clemency case not even President Bush can ignore — or can he?” The Washington Post today contains an editorial that begins, “The Supreme Court this week declined to review the case of Weldon Angelos, leaving in place his obscene sentence of 55 years in prison for small-time marijuana and gun charges. The high court’s move is no surprise; the justices have tended to uphold draconian sentences against constitutional challenge. But it confronts President Bush with a question he will have to address: Is there any sentence so unfair that he would exert himself to correct it?”

“Pataki Goes Far Afield to Find Political Allies for the City Appellate Bench”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

Available online from law.com: An article reports that “Calif. High Court Weighs Whether Trickery OK in Research.”

And the brand new installment of my “On Appeal” column is headlined “Have 7th Circuit Judges Gone Off the Deep End?” My essay concludes:

If the 7th Circuit desires that the appellate record better reflect the precise basis for the federal district court’s subject matter jurisdiction, those appellate judges should consider cracking the whip on their federal district court colleagues. It is the federal district court judges who, in the first instance, have the ability to ensure that the record is absolutely clear concerning what facts and allegations do or do not give rise to the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

I continue to enjoy the intellect and writing of Judge Posner and Chief Judge Easterbrook, but sometimes, to use Judge Posner’s own words, they do cross the line and become fusspots and nitpickers when the question arises of berating or sanctioning attorneys for minor and inconsequential transgressions.

The focus of my essay is the Seventh Circuit’s recent ruling in Smoot v. Mazda Motors of America, Inc., a decision that I first commented on in a post you can access here.

“Senate vote gives Jordan appellate seat”: The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware today contains an article that begins, “The U.S. Senate on Friday confirmed Kent A. Jordan to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, Delaware’s congressional delegation announced.”

And law.com reports that “Senate Confirms Jordan to 3rd Circuit Replacing Senior Judge Jane Roth.”

“High court says driving slow not probable cause”: The Nevada Appeal of Carson City today contains an article that begins, “The Nevada Supreme Court ruled Thursday simply driving below the speed limit isn’t enough reason legally for a police officer to pull someone over.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Nevada at this link.

“Rumsfeld’s Detainee Liability Case Advances”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered.”

“Judge Weighs Torture Claim Vs. Rumsfeld”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A federal judge on Friday appeared reluctant to give Donald H. Rumsfeld immunity from torture allegations, yet said it would be unprecedented to let the departing defense secretary face a civil trial.”

“Bar fights court’s ‘invisible’ rulings; Appellate findings should be accessible, Ariz. lawyers say”: Today in The Arizona Daily Star, Howard Fischer has an article that begins, “Last month, the state Court of Appeals issued a 54-page ruling on the controversial issue of whether state lawmakers are constitutionally required to provide more cash to certain public schools. To the public affected, however, the decision was essentially invisible because the three judges issued it as a ‘memorandum decision.’ That designation means the legal reasoning and conclusions reached cannot be cited as precedent in future cases. It also means the rulings are not available to the public on the court’s Web site. The only way to find out that the judges ruled at all is to go to the court’s office and manually go through those files. And there are a lot of them. About nine out of every 10 appellate-court rulings are designated as memo decisions.”

This exact issue also exists with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. I wrote about it the June 2005 installment of my “Upon Further Review” column for The Legal Intelligencer headlined “In The Quest For Access To Non–Precedential Decisions, Don’t Overlook The Possibility Of A Legislative Solution.”

Vote for “Best Law Blog” in The 2006 Weblog Awards: The polls opened yesterday evening, and “How Appealing” is currently in third place out of ten contestants. The first place blog doesn’t even yet have 500 votes in its favor, so the contest remains anybody’s game. You can vote once per computer, per web browser, every 24 hours. Simply click here to access the page where you can cast your vote.

The Seventh Circuit provides no good news today for those particularly averse to paying taxes: On behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner today issued an opinion that begins, “Just five days before the expiration of the 10-year statute of limitations, the government filed a complaint in federal district court against Thomas McLaughlin for unpaid income taxes of almost $3 million, including penalties and interest.” Yet, for reasons explained in the decision, the federal government failed to effectuate service of the complaint on McLaughlin until 271 days later. Today’s Seventh Circuit ruling affirms the district court’s rejection of McLaughlin’s argument that belated service of the complaint should allow him to avoid having to pay the tax debt, all of which he concedes owing.

And in a separate ruling issued today, Circuit Judge Terence T. Evans issued an opinion that begins:

Benjamin Franklin said it in 1789: “In this world, nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes.” Glen Murphy, a chiropractor from the posh Waukesha County (Wisconsin) suburb of Elm Grove, didn’t agree with the taxes part of Franklin’s statement. Inappropriately acting on that belief earned Murphy an indictment for filing false income tax returns (seven counts) and willfully not filing any at all (three counts).

Today’s ruling affirms Murphy’s conviction on all counts following a jury trial and resulting sentence of 41 months of imprisonment.

“Minimum Wage: The $1.50 Attorney Fee.” That was the title of the February 6, 2006 installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com. I’m reminded of that column because today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision upholding a $1.50 attorney’s fee under the Prison Litigation Reform Act for representing a prisoner who recovered a $1.00 nominal damages award.

The U.S. Senate has confirmed U.S. District Judge Kent A. Jordan (D. Del.) to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: The roll call vote on the confirmation hasn’t appeared online yet, but earlier today a cloture motion passed by a vote of 93-0. The confirmation leaves the Third Circuit, which has 14 authorized active judgeships, with three vacancies.

Update: The Senate’s web site now reveals that Judge Jordan’s confirmation to the Third Circuit occurred by a vote of 91-0.

“Bible fight not just local anymore; Out-of-town lawyers are helping both sides of case at appeals hearing”: The Houston Chronicle today contains an article that begins, “The battle over a Bible displayed outside the former Harris County civil courts building had a distinctly local flavor. Randall Kallinen, a local lawyer and head of the Houston chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, represented real estate broker Kay Staley and convinced a federal district judge that it was unconstitutional for the county to allow the display. Lawyers from the county attorney’s office represented the county. But the appeals hearing next month before the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will have a different feel, with high-powered out-of-town lawyers working for both sides in a case that could set precedents on church-state issues.”

In September, I discussed the case in an installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com headlined “Monument at Houston Courthouse Tests the Limits of Ten Commandments Rulings.”

“‘Beautiful Braniac’ to Join HLS”: The Harvard Crimson today contains an article that begins, “A leading constitutional theorist who was once named the ‘Most Beautiful Brainiac’ by New York Magazine has accepted an offer to join Harvard Law School’s faculty next fall, the school announced yesterday.”

Harvard Law School’s official announcement is titled “Noah Feldman to join Harvard Law faculty.”

But will the inmates receive internet access, too? The Toronto Globe and Mail today contains an article headlined “Top court upholds inmate’s computer access” that begins, “The B.C. government may have to purchase laptops or provide increased computer access for alleged Hells Angels, Inderjit Singh Reyat and other inmates to ensure they have fair trials, as a result of a court decision yesterday.”

Question of whether the crosses should remain in the logo of the City of Las Cruces, New Mexico heads to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: The Las Cruces Sun-News reports today that “City crosses lawsuit appealed” (via “Religion Clause“).

My most recent earlier coverage of this case can be accessed here.

“N.J. court upholds eminent domain; It said preserving open space is an adequate reason to take private property”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

And The Newark Star-Ledger reports today that “N.J. justices say towns can seize developers’ land; Ruling expands eminent domain.”

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“Judge Holder must pay his own attorney’s fees, state Supreme Court rules; The judge was cleared of misconduct charges last year but owes $1.8-million in legal bills”: The St. Petersburg Times today contains an article that begins, “Circuit Judge Gregory Holder beat a plagiarism charge but remains on the hook for his attorney’s fees, the Florida Supreme Court ruled Thursday.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Florida at this link.

“Fumo calls grand-jury judge biased; In a Supreme Court filing, Fumo said he and the judge overseeing the inquiry into him have a history of animosity”: This article appeared yesterday in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

“Nudist colony to reinstate ‘loner’; Man gets $12,000 for lost reputation, opportunity”: The Victoria Times Colonist today contains an article that begins, “A Vancouver Island nudist, who was ejected from his colony for failing to be sociable with the other nudists, has been ordered reinstated. In a B.C. Supreme Court judgment yesterday, Justice Sunni Stromberg-Stein ordered Jerry Grenier be reinstated as a probationary member in the Sol Sante Club.”

“Bandits steal car and strand Brazil’s Supreme Court chief justice”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Armed men held up the chief justice of Brazil’s Supreme Court and stole her car, leaving her standing on the side of a highway, police said Friday.”

And Reuters reports that “Brazil’s top judges robbed on Rio highway.”

“High court to review double murder case; Defense says key witness not allowed to testify in 3rd trial”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Thursday to review the case of a convicted double murderer from Solano County who says the jury should have heard from a woman who reported that her cousin confessed to the 1992 slayings.”