“Mass. Court Won’t Force Marriage Vote”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The state’s highest court on Wednesday said it had no authority to force lawmakers to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.”

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

“Race ban backers try to lift colleges’ delay”: On Saturday, The Detroit News published an article that begins, “An anti-affirmative action group headed to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in a last-minute effort to force the state’s three largest universities to comply with Proposal 2 today — the date when the constitutional amendment was scheduled to take effect.”

Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit issued an order calling for expedited briefing of the Emergency Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal and the related petition for writ of mandamus.

“D.C. Circuit Panel to Reconsider Tax Ruling”: Peter Lattman today has this post, in which I am quoted, at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog.”

“Justices lose one to Fieger; Federal appeals court gives him chance to prove bias”: The Detroit Free Press today contains an article that begins, “Southfield lawyer Geoffrey Fieger scored a point in his feud with the state Supreme Court on Tuesday when a federal court ruled he can continue his efforts to disqualify certain justices he claims are biased against him from hearing his cases.”

And The Detroit News reports today that “Fieger wins right to fight judges; Southfield attorney can challenge state high court justices’ refusal to recuse themselves.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Michigan’s high court should have conflict of interest rules; The rules should be limited to real issues, not politics.”

My earlier recent coverage of this matter can be accessed here and here.

As I noted in the earlier of those two posts, the Supreme Court of Michigan‘s ruling on the merits in the Fieger disciplinary case is now the subject of a petition for writ of certiorari pending before the U.S. Supreme Court in a case captioned Fieger v. Michigan Grievance Administrator at No. 06-596. I have obtained an electronic copy of that cert. petition, whose question presented asks:

Does an attorney have a First Amendment right to publicly express non-defamatory personal criticism of a judge when that criticism could not affect any pending trial, as the Ninth Circuit and the supreme courts of Colorado, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have held, or is an attorney subject to discipline for such criticism, as the Seventh Circuit and the supreme courts of Michigan, Mississippi, and Missouri have held?

You can access the complete cert. petition, with appendix, by clicking here.

“Iraqi Court Says Hussein Must Die Within 30 Days”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

The Washington Post today contains a front page article headlined “Iraqi Court Upholds Hussein’s Sentence; Hanging Could Happen Within 30 Days.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Iraqi court upholds death for Hussein; Execution must take place within 30 days, judges rule; No more appeals are possible.”

And USA Today reports that “Saddam to hang within 30 days.”

“FBI Says Files In Leak Cases Are ‘Missing'”: Today in The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein has an article that begins, “The FBI is missing nearly a quarter of its files relating to investigations of recent leaks of classified information, according to a court filing the bureau made last week.”

“Guantanamo needs courthouse, Pentagon says”: The Los Angeles Times today contains an article that begins, “Although the Pentagon estimates that no more than 80 of the 400 or so terrorism detainees here will ever be tried, it is moving forward with plans for a $125-million legal complex.”

“Remnants Of a Trial Prompt a Crusade; Va. Man Seeks End To Security Measures”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “Jim Savage has been living in a world of guard shacks, green security poles and Jersey barricades lining the street outside his home next to the federal courthouse in Alexandria. They were put there for the trial of a terrorist, Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, and they were supposed to come down when the trial was over. Seven months after it ended, they are still there.”

“Maryland’s Death Penalty: It’s time to discuss giving it up.” This editorial appears today in The Washington Post.

The Associated Press is reporting: An article headlined “Ford Once Sought Impeachment of Justice” reports that “In April 1970, at the request of White House aide John Ehrlichman, Ford led an effort by more than 100 House members to impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.” Of course, President Gerald R. Ford, who died overnight, was also the President who placed Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court.

And an article headlined “Cyberspace Sex Scandal Heads to Trial” begins, “When Robert Steinbuch discovered his girlfriend had discussed intimate details about their sex life in her online diary, the Capitol Hill staffer didn’t just get mad. He got a lawyer. Soon, though, the racy tidbits about the sex lives of the two Senate aides faded from the front pages and the gossip pages. Steinbuch accepted a teaching job in Arkansas, leaving Washington and Jessica Cutler’s ‘Washingtonienne’ Web log behind.”

“Wallace withdrawal opens space; Bush can now select another nominee”: The Biloxi Sun Herald today contains an article that begins, “Attorney Michael B. Wallace, in asking President Bush on Tuesday to withdraw his nomination for a U.S. Court of Appeals seat, said ‘it is the right thing to do for Mississippi.’ Wallace, a Biloxi native and Jackson attorney, was among six appellate court nominees whose approval was stalled earlier this year. Some political analysts have blamed the stall on the new Democrat-controlled Senate’s clash with Bush’s push to satisfy his conservative base.”

“Ex-Judges Back Man Who Says U.S. Sent Him To Be Tortured”: Today in The New York Sun, Joseph Goldstein has an article that begins, “A group of retired federal judges is backing a lawsuit by a Canadian citizen who claims America sent him to Syria to be tortured. The former judges, who come from the 3rd, 6th, 9th, and D.C. circuit courts of appeals, filed a brief urging the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which sits in New York, to allow the lawsuit to go forward.”

“Why the Public/Private Distinction Should Not Govern the Courtroom: The Supreme Court’s Flawed Decision in Carey v. Musladin.” Sherry F. Colb has this essay online today at FindLaw.

“Retiring justice laments influence of money; But he’s hopeful times are changing”: The Las Vegas Review-Journal today contains an article that begins, “Too many Nevadans hold the view that justice is for sale and only the rich can afford good lawyers, retiring Supreme Court Chief Justice Bob Rose says.”

“Fieger wins partial victory in feud with state high court”: The Detroit News provides an update that begins, “A federal appeals court today upheld lawyer Geoffrey Fieger’s challenge to the way the Michigan Supreme Court handles requests for judges to recuse themselves. The decision of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati is a partial victory for Fieger and a setback for a Michigan Supreme Court that has been in the news because of internal dissension.”

And The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Court: Fieger can continue recusal try against GOP justices.”

“Miss. Attorney Asks Out of Nomination”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A Mississippi attorney asked President Bush to withdraw his nomination to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, saying he doesn’t believe the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee considers him a consensus nominee. Jackson attorney Michael Wallace, 54, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he made the request in a letter sent late last week.”

“Notice of Proposed Circuit Rule Changes And Opportunity for Comment”: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has today given notice of a proposed change to its local rules to accommodate Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1, which nominally took effect on December 1, 2006 but which really, really takes effect January 1, 2007.

“Questioning Capital Punishment”: Bruce Shapiro will have this essay in the January 8, 2007 issue of The Nation.

“Texas City Tests Religion Law”: The Associated Press provides an article reporting that “The Texas Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in March or April on whether Sinton’s zoning ordinance violates the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

Thanks to the web site of the Supreme Court of Texas, you can access the briefs filed in the case via this link.

“Misjudging a judge”: Last Thursday’s edition of Newsday contained an editorial that begins, “In the annals of politicians using the federal judiciary as a foil to advance their own careers, the shenanigans of Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) will earn a special spot in the section dedicated to bigoted fools.”

Also that day, U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) had an op-ed in The Grand Rapids Press entitled “Assurance needed Neff won’t be an activist judge.”

And The Kalamazoo Gazette published a related editorial entitled “Senate should honor deal on federal judges.”

“Kansas Judge Lets AG Press Abortion Case”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A judge agreed Tuesday to let Kansas’ attorney general, a vocal abortion opponent, try to persuade him to reinstate charges against a well-known abortion provider.”

“Court Upholds Saddam’s Death Sentence”: The Washington Post provides this news update.

And The New York Times provides a news update headlined “Court Upholds Death Penalty for Hussein.”

D.C. Circuit grants panel rehearing in Murphy v. IRS: “TaxProf Blog” provides a post titled “D.C. Circuit Panel Agrees to Rehear Murphy.” Because rehearing has been granted before the original three-judge panel, the en banc D.C. Circuit has dismissed the federal government’s petition for rehearing en banc as moot. “TaxProf Blog” links to the orders granting panel rehearing and denying rehearing en banc as moot.

In Murphy, a unanimous three-judge D.C. Circuit panel held that “insofar as §104(a)(2) permits the taxation of compensation for a personal injury, which compensation is unrelated to lost wages or earnings, that provision is unconstitutional.” You can access the now-vacated three-judge panel’s ruling at this link. My initial coverage of that ruling appears here.

“Rising near the top of U.S. judicial hierarchy; Supreme Court goal in Easterbrook reach”: The Buffalo News yesterday published an article that begins, “When Frank H. Easterbrook was a teenager, winning awards for playing the French horn and acting in plays at Kenmore West High School, his father could tell there was something special about him.”

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reinstates attorney Geoffrey N. Fieger’s challenge to the constitutionality of the recusal rules applicable to the Justices serving on the Supreme Court of Michigan: Last night, in a post you can access here, I noted some remarkably acrimonious developments last week among the Justices on Michigan’s highest court in a case involving disciplinary sanctions against attorney Geoffrey N. Fieger. As last night’s post notes, the state court proceedings from Michigan are now the subject of Fieger’s petition for writ of certiorari pending before the U.S. Supreme Court at No. 06-596.

Today, a related aspect of attorney Fieger’s recusal-related battle against various Justices on Michigan’s highest court produced a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. And today, Fieger achieved a significant if partial victory, as the Sixth Circuit has reinstated his challenge to the constitutionality of the recusal rules applicable to the Justices serving on the Supreme Court of Michigan.

“Court Upholds Saddam’s Death Sentence”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “An Iraqi appeals court has upheld the death sentence for Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s national security adviser said Tuesday.”

Reuters provides a report headlined “Saddam loses death sentence appeal: govt official.”

BBC News reports that “Death sentence for Saddam upheld; An Iraqi appeals court has upheld the death sentence against ousted President Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s national security adviser has said.”

And CNN.com reports that “Iraqi court upholds Hussein death sentence.”

“2006 Appellate Year in Review”: Today’s installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com can be accessed at this link.

“Anonymous testimony pushes limits; Defense lawyers say justice isn’t served if they can’t know the identities of the Israeli agents”: The Los Angeles Times today contains an article that begins, “In three current high-profile criminal cases, federal prosecutors have asked that the identities of Israeli government witnesses be withheld from defendants and their attorneys — a move some legal scholars see as a highly unusual end run around the 6th Amendment.”

“St. Louis judge’s outspoken book causing controversy”: The St. Louis Post-Dispatch today contains an article that begins, “A liberal-bashing book by a veteran St. Louis judge is to become available publicly this week, but it is already causing a stir in political and legal circles — and prompting some to say it could cost him his job.”

“A Delusional System of Justice”: Today in The Washington Post, columnist Richard Cohen has an op-ed in which he writes, “My person of the year is Gregory Thompson. I choose him to call attention to the madness of the death penalty.”

“Justice Dept. Database Stirs Privacy Fears; Size and Scope of the Interagency Investigative Tool Worry Civil Libertarians”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“Courts Side With NSA On Wiretaps”: Today in The New York Sun, Joseph Goldstein has an article that begins, “Defense lawyers who had hoped that the public disclosure a year ago of the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program would yield information favorable to their clients are being rebuffed by the federal judiciary, which in a series of unusually consistent rulings has rejected efforts by terrorism suspects to access the records.”

“All But the Name of Marriage: New Jersey Adopts ‘Civil Unions’ for Same-Sex Couples.” Joanna Grossman has this essay online at FindLaw.

“Assessing the Supreme Court”: Indian Country Today offers an article that begins, “A U.S. Supreme Court considered anti-Indian by the balance of opinion in Indian country didn’t improve its standing with these critics in 2006, but worth noting is that it didn’t render decisions against Indian interests so much as it allowed lower court decisions to stand. And it took on one case, to be argued in January, concerning federal impact aid funding to schools that serve Indian students.”

“High court’s feud erupts over case involving Fieger”: The Detroit Free Press on Friday published an article that begins, “A bitter and long-standing feud within the Michigan Supreme Court erupted into open warfare Thursday as Justice Elizabeth Weaver issued a stinging denunciation of the court’s Republican majority and what she said was an attempt to gag dissenters. In a flurry of opinions, Weaver and the other justices exchanged accusations over a variety of grievances stemming from a case involving firebrand Southfield attorney Geoffrey Fieger. Longtime observers of the court said the eruption was like nothing any of them could recall.”

Also on Friday, The Free Press contained an editorial entitled “Fairness questioned at state Supreme Court.” And columnist Brian Dickerson had an op-ed entitled “Oyez, oyez: God help this dysfunctional court!” One week earlier, Dickerson had a related op-ed entitled “Flustered court rushes to gag a rogue justice.”

Booth Newspapers on Friday published an article headlined “Supreme Court revives Fieger-inspired tussle.”

And The Associated Press provided reports headlined “Top state court denies Fieger request to postpone reprimand; Majority of justices say the action will not harm his ability to practice law as he makes an appeal” and “Justice Weaver again criticizes other Republicans on Michigan Supreme Court.”

Last Thursday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Michigan denying a stay in the Fieger matter, which includes the previously suppressed dissent by Justice Elizabeth A. Weaver, can be accessed here. The December 6, 2006 order that, in the words of The Associated Press headline caused “Justice Weaver [to] again criticize other Republicans on Michigan Supreme Court” can be accessed here, while Justice Weaver’s dissent from that order can be accessed here.

The Supreme Court of Michigan’s ruling on the merits in the Fieger disciplinary case, issued on July 31, 2006, can be accessed here, while the briefs filed in that case can be accessed via this link.

The Supreme Court of the United States has docketed the petition for writ of certiorari in Fieger v. Michigan Grievance Administrator at No. 06-596.