“Sullivan Will Voluntarily Testify Before Judiciary Committee”: Lynne Tuohy of The Hartford Courant provides a news update that begins, “Former Chief Justice William J. Sullivan has reversed his stance and said he will voluntarily testify before the legislature’s Judiciary Committee about his withholding release of a controversial ruling on access to the courts.”

“‘Ask the Author’ with David Stras”: Law Professor David Stras, whose law review articles and Minnesota Public Radio appearances I’ve occasionally noted here in the past, is participating in this question-and-answer session at “SCOTUSblog.”

Who knew that being an attorney was a free pass to sex with inmates? The Baltimore Examiner today contains an article headlined “Investigators: Woman fakes attorney pass for inmate sex.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Woman Allegedly Steals ID for Inmate Sex.”

At least this time, it’s not a real lawyer who’s accused of hanky panky with a prisoner.

Available online from law.com: An article reports that “Calif. High Court Takes Up Recusals Over Film, Book.”

In other news, “After Shooting, Firms Think of Security; Wariness expressed over certain type of client.”

Shannon P. Duffy reports that “Test Taker Sues to Gain More LSAT Time.”

And Lawrence Savell has an essay entitled “Is Your Blog Exposing You to Legal Liability?”

Programming note: During the day today, I will be away from the office meeting with co-counsel to finalize a Brief for Appellants due to be filed today in an appeal pending in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Earlier media coverage of that case can be accessed here.

Additional posts will appear here later today.

Petition for writ of certiorari filed in grandparent visitation case: Yesterday, with the invaluable assistance of the University of Virginia School of Law‘s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, a petition for writ of certiorari was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court presenting the following question over which state courts of last resort are profoundly divided:

Whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is violated when a court orders grandparent visitation over a fit parent’s objection, where the grandparent has not proved by clear and convincing evidence that such an order is necessary to prevent harm or potential harm to the child.

This is the case in which a client of mine was on the losing side before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. You can access the Pa. Supreme Court’s opinions in that case via this link, while related earlier press coverage from Joan Biskupic of USA Today can be accessed here.

The cert. petition itself can be accessed at this link. Let me thank Mark T. Stancil, Law Professor Daniel R. Ortiz, David T. Goldberg, and UVA law students Andrew Carlon, Lisa Kinney, and Matt Madden for their tremendous work resulting in yesterday’s court filing.

Update: The Supreme Court has docketed the case at No. 06-863. Respondent’s brief in opposition is currently due on or before January 22, 2007.

“State high court to review same-sex marriage ban”: Maura Dolan has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Marriage law goes to high court; State Supreme Court sets aside appellate ruling on same-sex issue, agrees to hear arguments.”

In The Sacramento Bee, legal affairs writer Claire Cooper has an article headlined “Review for gay marriage; High court moves quickly in agreeing to study state’s ban.”

Josh Richman of The Oakland Tribune reports that “State Supreme Court takes gay marriage cases.”

And The San Jose Mercury News contains an article headlined “Next step for gay marriage; State Supreme Court agrees to weigh whether ban violates civil rights.”

“High court may take up question of Scouts’ religious status; Ninth U.S. Circuit requests state review of federal case involving San Diego’s $1-a-year lease of parkland to group”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

“N.J. Gov. to Make Gay Unions Official”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Judge Questiions the FCC’s Right To Police Network Television”: Joseph Goldstein has this article today in The New York Sun.

And today in The New York Daily News, David Bianculli, that newspaper’s television critic, has an essay entitled “F-bombs away at FCC wrangle.”

You can access my earlier coverage of yesterday’s Second Circuit oral argument at this link.

Available online from law.com: Marcia Coyle has an article headlined “For a High Court Battle, Two Words: Get Carter.”

And in other news, “Ga. Lawyer Upbeat on Evolution Deal.”

“Inviting A Federal Judge to A Seminar? You May Have to Report It.” The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts issued this news release yesterday. Also available online are FAQs and the text of the applicable Judicial Conference Policy.

“Best Law Blog (2006)”: Congratulations to “The Volokh Conspiracy,” which is the well-deserved winner of this honor in The 2006 Weblog Awards.

And thanks to everyone who voted for “How Appealing” in that contest, enabling this blog to achieve second place.

“Manchin not entitled to immunity, U.S. court rules”: The West Virginia Record provides a news update that begins, “The United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said Wednesday that Gov. Joe Manchin is not entitled to immunity in a suit brought against him by Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship, affirming an earlier District Court ruling.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Massey CEO wins procedural round in lawsuit against Manchin.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at this link.

Chief Judge Easterbrook versus Circuit Judge Posner: Are you, like me, of the belief that any decision in which Frank H. Easterbrook or Richard A. Posner dissents from the other’s opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is likely to be worth a look? If so, you won’t want to miss this decision that the Seventh Circuit issued today.

The context of today’s case is as follows. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a governmental official who is being sued has the right to appeal from a federal district court’s denial of the qualified immunity defense at both the pleadings stage and at the summary judgment stage. In an earlier case, the Seventh Circuit ruled that where a federal district court denied two summary judgment motions filed by the same defendant asserting qualified immunity, the defendant cannot appeal from the second ruling because he should have appealed from the first.

In today’s case, the defendant asserted a qualified immunity defense at both the pleadings stage and the summary judgment stage, but at the summary judgment stage the defendant’s argument in support of qualified immunity did not differ either factually or legally from the argument made at the judgment on the pleadings stage. Because the defendant did not appeal from the district court’s denial of qualified immunity at the pleadings stage, the majority today holds that he cannot appeal from the denial of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, which is what the defendant was seeking to do in the case decided today.

Although the majority, in an opinion by Chief Judge Easterbrook, questions the soundness of the earlier decision, it views itself as bound by the outcome of that case here. Judge Posner, in dissent, concludes that the earlier decision does not dictate the outcome here, and therefore he would consider today’s appeal on the merits. I think I agree with Judge Posner’s dissent.

“Nudity law is struck down; The adult industry scores a victory; The law would have affected several clubs in KC”: This article appears today in The Kansas City Star.

And The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The Missouri Supreme Court struck down a state law Tuesday barring nude dancing and touching between strippers and customers.”

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

“The Lessons and Lasting Importance of Defeating the Nuclear Option”: Ralph G. Neas, president, People For the American Way Foundation, issued this statement today.

“Judges Quiz Lawyer on FCC Indecency Rule”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Federal appeals judges Wednesday challenged a government lawyer over the Federal Communications Commission’s tough new policy against accidental use of profanities in broadcasts.”

WSJ.com’s “Washington Wire” blog provides a post titled “C-SPAN’s Potty-Mouth Broadcast” that asks, “How often does noted Supreme Court specialist Carter Phillips get to drop the f-bomb (and worse) in open court?”

At CNN.com, Jeffrey Toobin reports that “Attorney argues FCC rules on profanity unfair.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Fox TV Asks Court to Throw Out FCC’s Indecency Policy.”

MarketWatch reports that “Federal court grills FCC in Fox TV indecency case.”

And Broadcasting & Cable provides a report headlined “Views Vary on Oral Argument.” According to this report, “the judges may have been reluctant to swear in court, but Fox attorney Carter Phillips said ‘fuck’ and ‘fucking’ and ‘shit’ almost immediately in outlining the case, as if to get the words out, on the table and unabashedly part of the conversation.”

You can access audio and video of attorney Carter G. Phillips‘s profanity-laden oral argument presented today before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by clicking here (RealPlayer required) via C-SPAN.

“State’s top court agrees to review same-sex marriage ruling”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle provides this news update.

And David Kravets of The Associated Press reports that “Calif. High Court Reviewing Gay Marriage.”

Programming note: During the day today, I will be away from the office meeting with co-counsel to finalize a Brief for Appellants due to be filed tomorrow in an appeal pending in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Earlier media coverage of that case can be accessed here.

Also today, thanks to the hard work of of the students and faculty members of the University of Virginia Law School‘s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, a petition for writ of certiorari is being filed in the grandparent visitation case in which my client was on the losing side before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. You can access the rulings in that case via this link, while related press coverage from Joan Biskupic of USA Today can be accessed here. I’ll post a copy of the cert. petition online sometime soon.

Additional posts will appear here later today.

“Md. executions halted; State court finds procedures established improperly”: This article appears today in The Baltimore Sun.

Today in The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that “Highest Court in Maryland Suspends Executions.”

And The Washington Post reports that “Maryland High Court Calls Halt to Executions; Lethal Injection Blocked Over Procedural Issue.”

“Cobb gives up on evolution book stickers; School board settles lawsuit that brought national limelight over disclaimers”: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution contains this article today.

And The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Evolution warnings don’t stick.”

“Court orders FERC to review electricity pacts; The federal ruling on contracts signed by the state in 2001 could reap $1.4 billion in refunds or credits for ratepayers”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

And The New York Times reports today that “Court Says U.S. Oversight of Power Industry Was Lax.”

You can access yesterday’s rulings of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit both here and here.

“Bush appointees signal court’s new direction; Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito appear ready to steer bench to the right; affirmative action, abortion issues could see big impact”: Joan Biskupic has this article today in USA Today.

“TV Profanity Will Go Before Appeals Judges”: Joseph Goldstein has this article today in The New York Sun.

“The Supreme Court Rules that California’s Upholding a Conviction, Despite Family Members’ Wearing Buttons Bearing the Victim’s Picture in the Courtroom, Did Not Violate Its Clearly Established Precedent”: Vikram David Amar has this essay online today at FindLaw.

“Maryland High Court Calls Halt to Executions; Lethal Injection Blocked Over Procedural Issue”: This article will appear Wednesday in The Washington Post. My earlier coverage is at this link.

“Governor demands changes in lethal injection protocol; The mandate comes in response to a judge’s ruling that the procedure violates the Constitution”: Henry Weinstein has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

Today in The San Jose Mercury News, Howard Mintz reports that “Execution reforms ordered; Governor focuses on flaws mentioned in judge’s decision.”

The Sacramento Bee reports that “State seeks new plan for lethal injections; Responding to judge, governor wants improved training for executions.”

And The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Governor acts to save method of execution.” In addition, columnist Debra J. Saunders has an op-ed entitled “Death penalty received no death blow.”

A fine ruling on panhandling from New York State’s highest court: The Associated Press reports that “Top NY court upholds fines for some panhandling.” You can access today’s ruling of the Court of Appeals of New York at this link.

Today’s rulings of note from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: In a federal criminal appeal in which the appendix was wholly insufficient, the court today ordered counsel for the defendant-appellant to show cause why a sanction of $1,000 should not be assessed.

And in a second criminal case decided today, Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook provides an interesting discussion of the risk of misidentification when the victim is asked to identify the perpetrator using a lineup. Today’s decision describes an even better method than a lineup — “the repeated sequential display.”

This would appear to be a fact rather than a theory — “Textbook stickers on evolution out in Cobb”: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution provides a news update that begins, “The Cobb County School board has agreed to settle the long-running legal fight over its 2002 decision to place anti-evolution stickers in high school biology textbooks.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Ga. School District Abandons Stickers.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ordered further federal district court proceedings in this case in a ruling issued in May 2006. My coverage of that ruling can be accessed here.

A job applicant’s failure to meet the job’s objective qualifications does not disqualify her from bringing a gender discrimination claim if the male hired to perform the job also did not meet the job’s objective qualifications: A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued this decision today. The ruling states, “We must decide whether an employer that hires someone who lacks a job posting’s objective qualifications can point to the absence of those same qualifications in another applicant as a basis for declining to hire that second applicant. We hold that it cannot, and in so doing conclude that Scheidemantle established a prima facie case of discrimination.”

“Brownback Wants to Re-Question Nominee”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Sen. Sam Brownback, who wants to champion social conservatives in the presidential race, said Tuesday he wants a Senate panel to re-question a judicial nominee who attended a same-sex union ceremony. Brownback, a Kansas Republican, said he wants Michigan state judge Janet Neff to testify about her role in the 2002 Massachusetts ceremony, her legal views on same-sex unions and her ability to be impartial if called upon to rule on such cases.”

As I noted in this post from last night, in today’s edition of The New York Times, Neil A. Lewis has an article headlined “Senator Removes His Block on Federal Court Nominee.”

“The 4th Circuit”: The Washington Times today contains an editorial that begins, “Change is coming to a pillar of American constitutionalist jurisprudence. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, widely regarded as the most conservative federal appellate court in the country and the site of Judges Terrence W. Boyle’s and William J. Haynes II’s confirmation battles, could soon be one-third vacant.”

“Court orders lethal injection review; Ruling could lead to changes in state’s death penalty procedures”: The Baltimore Sun provides a news update that begins, “Maryland’s highest court today ruled that state law requires prison officials to submit their lethal injection procedures to public input — a decision that could lead to changes in how prisoners are put to death here.”

You can access today’s lengthy ruling of the Court of Appeals of Maryland — that State’s highest court — at this link.

Coincidentally, today’s print edition of The Baltimore Sun contains an article headlined “O’Malley awaits court action on lethal injection; Gov.-elect says he’ll obey state law despite personal opposition to capital punishment.”