“Ruling Seen as Giving an Edge to Challengers of Patents”: Linda Greenhouse will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.

“Bush Drops Plans to Renominate 3 Judges”: Neil A. Lewis will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.

The Washington Post on Wednesday will report that “4 Nominees To Appeals Courts Are Dropped; 32 Appointments Re-Sent to Senate.”

And McClatchy Newspapers report that “Bush drops 4 embattled judicial nominees.”

“Retiring justice hangs up robe, 18 years experience”: This article appears today in The Reno Gazette-Journal.

“Group sues to get schools more time to implement Proposal 2”: The Detroit Free Press provides a news update that begins, “A group that supports affirmative action asked the U.S. Supreme Court this afternoon for an emergency injunction to give a 6-month reprieve to three state universities to comply with Proposal 2.”

And The Detroit News provides an update headlined “Group will ask high court to allow more time for universities to comply with Proposal 2.”

“I hope that, one day, Vince Smith is on the U.S. Supreme Court; it would not surprise me, and it would thrill me.” So says former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee in an article headlined “Huckabee and Hope – a love affair” published today in The Hope Star. The quote refers to Eighth Circuit Judge Lavenski R. Smith.

“Union fight reaches high court”: The Seattle Times today contains an article that begins, “In an appeal of a Washington state case, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide whether labor unions must get permission before spending nonmembers’ fees on political activities. The case, which is scheduled for oral arguments in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, is the latest clash in a nationwide war between labor unions and anti-union forces.”

“U.S. justices hear bond case”: This article appears in Thursday’s edition of The Pacific Daily News of Guam.

“Four Appeals Court Choices Dropped From Consideration”: Bloomberg News provides this report.

“Supreme Court declines to hear appeal by Fumo”: The Philadelphia Inquirer today contains an article that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday declined to hear an appeal from State Sen. Vincent J. Fumo, who sought to remove the judge supervising a grand jury investigating him.”

“Judge OKs VA hospital chaplaincy; 1st Amendment not violated, judge says”: The Capital Times of Madison, Wisconsin today contains an article that begins, “A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit Monday brought by the Madison-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, which alleged that the Department of Veterans Affairs’ chaplaincy program violates the First Amendment prohibition against government support of religion.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Federal judge clears use of religion in care for veterans.”

“Free-speech dispute over union fees; US Supreme Court to look at how much permission unions need to put nonmembers’ dues toward political causes”: Warren Richey will have this article Wednesday in The Christian Science Monitor.

Reversal’s afoot for model’s drug trafficking conviction: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned the drug trafficking conviction of a Swedish foot model, ruling a police officer wrongly searched her rental car after stopping her for a minor traffic violation.”

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

Third time’s the charm? In a second set of judicial nominations issued today, the White House has nominated former Mississippi Court of Appeals Judge Leslie H. Southwick to fill the vacancy created when Circuit Judge Charles W. Pickering, Sr. retired before his recess nomination expired. Southwick had previously been nominated to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, but the U.S. Senate did not act on that nomination.

White House renominates various U.S. Court of Appeals nominees: Today’s nominations can be viewed at this link.

“Affirmative action plea to Court”: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post that begins, “Several Michigan groups and individuals who support the use of race and gender as part of public college admissions programs asked a Supreme Court Justice on Tuesday to allow three state universities to continue that practice during the current admissions cycle.”

“High Court Revives MedImmune Patent Suit; Analysts project the ruling does not bode well for KSR International v. Teleflex”: law.com’s Tony Mauro provides this news update.

“Abortion ban’s failure blamed on split; Survey: Most legislators didn’t represent views of their constituents.” This article appears today in The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

“Haynes, Myers, Boyle and Wallace Withdraw”: The organization People For the American Way issued this statement this afternoon.

And Earthjustice has issued a press release entitled “Anti-Environmental Judicial Nominee Myers Withdraws; Bi-partisan Senate action and environmental concerns defeated 9th Circuit nominee.”

You can now access online additional certiorari-stage filings in Fieger v. Michigan Grievance Administrator, No. 06-596 (U.S.): I have posted online both respondent’s Brief in Opposition [large PDF file] and the Reply Brief for Petitioner.

According to the Reply Brief, “If Respondent’s view is correct, a lawyer can be barred from exercising his First Amendment right to ‘castigate courts’ for as many years as it takes to exhaust all possible appeals from the judicial decision the lawyer wishes to castigate.”

I originally provided online access to the cert. petition in this earlier post. Additional background on the case is available via my post titled “High court’s feud erupts over case involving Fieger.”

Now you see it, now you don’t, now you see it once again: Slate has once again posted online Jim Newton’s jurisprudence essay entitled “The Brennan Memos: Brennan on Burger.”

Slate accidentally went live with the essay on Friday, thereby testing whether anyone monitors those pesky RSS feeds. As it turned out, the answer was “yes.”

Access online the transcripts of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments: The transcript of today’s oral argument in Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., No. 06-102, can be accessed here. Although three attorneys argued to the Court, the entire case was argued in just 38 minutes.

And the transcript of today’s oral argument in Schriro v. Landrigan, No. 05-1575, can be accessed here.

“Ninth Circuit Reconsiders Arizona Voter ID Case on Remand from Supreme Court”: Law Professor Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law” blog. As Rick’s post notes, David Kravets of The Associated Press has an article headlined “Judges debate Arizona voter ID rule” reporting on yesterday’s Ninth Circuit oral argument. As of this moment, the oral argument audio is not yet available for download from the Ninth Circuit’s web site.

Eighth Circuit grants rehearing en banc to reconsider preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of measures enacted in 2005 revising South Dakota’s law on informed consent to abortion: I have uploaded at this link a copy of today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Today’s order vacates the decision a divided three-judge Eighth Circuit panel issued on October 30, 2006 affirming the preliminary injunction. My earlier coverage of that ruling can be accessed here, while I collected press coverage of that ruling at this link.

“Bush Judicial Nominees Withdraw”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “In a concession to the Senate’s new Democratic majority, four of President Bush’s appeals court appointees have asked to have their nominations withdrawn, Republican officials said Tuesday. These officials said that William Haynes, William Myers and Terrence Boyle had all decided to abandon their quest for confirmation. Another nominee, Mike Wallace, let it be known last month that he, too, had asked Bush to withdraw his nomination.”

“Shouldn’t SCOTUS have just DIG’d Burton?” Law Professor Doug Berman has this post at the “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog. I think the short answer is that today’s per curiam opinion recognizes that neither of the lower courts possessed jurisdiction to rule on the case, whereas a dismissal as improvidently granted would have permitted the lower court rulings to remain in effect.

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court opinions in argued cases: The Court has itself now posted these decisions online.

The opinion in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., No. 05-608, can be accessed here. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court, from which Justice Clarence Thomas dissented. The oral argument transcript is here.

The opinion in United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, No. 05-998, can be accessed here. Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court, from which Justice Scalia dissented. The oral argument transcript is here.

And the unanimous per curiam opinion in Burton v. Stewart, No. 05-9222, can be accessed here. The oral argument transcript is here.

If you want to ship a package worth more than $50,000, United Parcel Service says take your business elsewhere: An especially valuable diamond ring lost in transit and the resulting denied insurance claim against UPS (even though the shipper purchased the maximum available insurance of $50,000) are the subject of this interesting opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued today.

Former trainer of the Polish boxer Andrew Golota can experience ecstasy as Seventh Circuit reverses his conviction on federal charges of conspiring to sell Ecstasy: Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner today issued this opinion on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel.

“US high court sides with MedImmune in patent ruling”: Reuters provides this report.

“Court Upholds Conviction in Border Bust”: The Associated Press provides this report.

And The AP also reports that “Court Rules in Favor of MedImmune” and “Court Refuses to Shorten Rapist’s Term.”

“Court rules on patent case”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.” Oral argument in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., No. 05-608, occurred on October 4, 2006, and you can access the oral argument transcript by clicking here.

According to Lyle’s post, the Court today also announced its ruling in United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, No. 05-998. Oral argument in that case occurred on October 10, 2006, and you can access the transcript here.

Today’s third and final ruling was a per curiam decision in Burton v. Stewart, No. 05-9222. That case was orally argued on November 7, 2006, and the transcript can be accessed here.

Update: “SCOTUSblog” provides access to today’s opinions via this link.

Second update: At 11:40 a.m. eastern time, The Associated Press has made today’s opinions available online via this link. Thus, for approximately fifty minutes this morning, the only place the Court’s opinions issued today were freely available to the public was at a law blog.

“Student sues principal for censorship; Eighth-grader protesting abortion claims freedom of speech was violated”: This article appears today in The Times Union of Albany, New York.

“What Has Happened to Slate‘s Report on the Brennan Memos?” Law Professor Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law” blog. Rick notes that despite Slate’s apparent attempt to “unpublish” the jurisprudence essay that I initially noted here yesterday, the essay remains available via Google cache.

“Prosecutors call mental health claims by Padilla’s lawyers a ‘sideshow'”: This article appears today in The South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

And The Associated Press reports that “Terror Suspect Wants Statements Withheld.”

“Gang case defense can’t get witness list”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “Federal prosecutors in the death penalty trial of alleged members of a violent San Francisco gang don’t have to give defense lawyers police reports that identify witnesses before the trial, a federal appeals court ruled Monday.”

You can access at this link yesterday’s ruling by a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.