“No Doubting Justice Thomas: The Independent Path of the Court’s Most Conservative Justice.” Jan Crawford Greenburg and Howard L. Rosenberg have this written report online at ABCNews.com. The report is related to Jan’s forthcoming appearance tonight on “Nightline.” And Jan tonight has this related post at her brand new blog, “Legalities”

“Supreme Court Limits Judges’ Sentencing Power”: Linda Greenhouse will have this article Tuesday in The New York Times.

“The Political Future of Abortion Rights”: Law Professor Jack M. Balkin has this post today at his blog, “Balkinization.”

Reply brief filed in support of DontDateHimGirl.com’s motion to dismiss a Pittsburgh attorney’s lawsuit against that web site: You can access the reply brief by clicking here. I previously collected at this link the other briefs filed in support of and in opposition to the motion to dismiss. The motion will be argued tomorrow in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

Michiko Kakutani of The New York Times reviews 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.” Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times will contain this book review.

“Court limits California judges’ sentencing clout”: Michael Doyle of The Sacramento Bee provides this news update.

And Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News provides a news update headlined “Supreme Court strikes down California sentencing law.”

“Prosecutors Want Padilla Leak Punished”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Prosecutors on Monday asked the judge in the Jose Padilla terrorism-support case to punish a defense attorney who leaked transcripts of Padilla’s intercepted phone conversations, saying the leak violated a court order and could jeopardize selection of an impartial jury.”

“Supreme Court Limits Judges’ Sentencing Ability”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered.”

Available online today from The American Prospect: Scott Lemieux has an essay entitled “For Richer or Poorer: The Roe decision was about class, too.”

And Alina Hoffman and Ann Friedman have an essay entitled “Anatomy of a Ban: A line-by-line look at Georgia’s proposed abortion-ban bill reveals the future of radical anti-choice legislation.”

“The Press and the Watada Trial”: In the February 5, 2007 issue of The Nation, Marc Cooper will have an essay that begins, “When Army Lieut. Ehren Watada’s court-martial opens on February 5, more than Watada’s refusal to deploy to Iraq may be put on trial. Also at stake is the independence of the press, especially some of its more vulnerable members.”

“Death Row Dean Wins Temporary Reprieve”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Texas’ longest-serving condemned prisoner, who had been set to die this week after more than 31 years on death row, won a reprieve Monday from the U.S. Supreme Court.”

The Eleventh Circuit delivers even worse news to some guy who claims to have invented EPCOT: Back on November 2, 2006, a unanimous three-judge panel ruled against the supposed EPCOT inventor on the merits but set aside some $120,000 in costs taxed against him in the district court. My earlier coverage of that ruling appears at this link.

Today, following sua sponte panel reconsideration, the same three-judge panel has issued a revised opinion upholding the district court’s entire original award of costs.

“We must decide whether a prospective commercial airline passenger, who presented no identification at check-in, and who voluntarily walked through a metal detector without setting off an alarm, can then prevent a government-ordered secondary screening search by stating he has decided not to fly and wants to leave the terminal.” So began an opinion that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued on March 17, 2006. The panel ruled that the prospective passenger could not avoid the secondary screening search by declaring that he no longer wished to fly but instead wanted to leave the terminal. My earlier coverage of that ruling appeared in a post titled “Don’t meth with airport security.”

Today, the Ninth Circuit entered an order granting rehearing en banc in the case. Stay tuned for further developments.

“Judges cannot add years to prisoners’ sentences, high court rules”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.

In case you missed it: Yesterday, McClatchy Newspapers posted online a must-read series by its U.S. Supreme Court correspondent, Stephen Henderson, entitled “No Defense: Shortcut to Death Row.”

“Supreme Court rejects former Carson water board official’s appeal”: The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.

“Supreme Court Rejects California Sentencing Law”: law.com’s Tony Mauro provides this news update.

Pulitzer Prize-winning historian David J. Garrow reviews Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen‘s new book, “The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America.” Garrow is effusive in his praise of the book. The review also discusses the accompanying PBS TV show, which Garrow didn’t enjoy nearly as much. Garrow’s review will appear in the April 2007 issue of American History magazine, but you can read it now by clicking here.

On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day“: The broadcast included audio segments entitled “High Court Rejects California Sentencing Law” (featuring Law Professor Doug Berman); “A Potential Juror in the Lewis Libby Trial“; and “Hip-Hop’s Mix-Tape Tradition Meets with the Law.”

“The View from the Trenches: A Report on the Breakout Sessions at the 2005 National Conference on Appellate Justice.” Law Professor Arthur D. Hellman has just posted this paper (abstract with link for download) online at SSRN.

“State’s criminal sentencing system unconstitutional, Supreme Court rules”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle provides this news update.

“Is McCain-Feingold Act poised for a setback?” Tony Mauro has this news analysis online at the First Amendment Center.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms rejection of lawsuit challenging change in the copyright system of the United States from an opt-in system to an opt-out system: You can access today’s ruling in Kahle v. Gonzales at this link.

Additional background on the case is available here from Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society and here from “lessig blog.”

In today’s mail: Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen‘s new book, “The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America.”

The book is a companion to the four-hour PBS series “The Supreme Court,” which will debut on January 31, 2007 and conclude on February 7, 2007. A web site devoted to that forthcoming PBS series can be accessed at this link.

If you won’t be in Tuscaloosa, Alabama on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 to watch Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. deliver the eighth Albritton Lecture at the University of Alabama School of Law, perhaps you can be in Philadelphia to attend an event entitled “The Supreme Court Revealed with Jeffrey Rosen and Jan Crawford Greenburg” at the National Constitution Center. I’ve already reserved a ticket for the event.

P.S. The copy of the book that I received from its publisher also includes a DVD providing an advance look at both parts of the PBS program. Once I get a chance to view the DVD, I’ll let you know whether the PBS broadcast is worth a look.

The “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog offers extensive commentary on today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Cunningham v. California: I’m particularly looking forward to Law Professor Douglas A. Berman‘s take on what insight today’s ruling provides into how the Court’s two newest Justices — Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. — view the Court’s precedents in Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker. In that regard, it appears noteworthy at first glance that Justice Alito did not join in Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s dissenting opinion, where Justice Kennedy writes: “In my view the Apprendi line of cases remains incorrect.”

“Court Eases Restrictions on Inmate Suits”: The Associated Press provides this report.

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court opinions in argued cases: The ruling in Cunningham v. California, No. 05–6551, can be accessed here.

The ruling in Osborn v. Haley, No. 05-593, can be accessed here.

And the ruling in Jones v. Bock, No. 05-7058, can be accessed here.

“The Truth About Clarence Thomas”: ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg today has this op-ed (pass-through link) in The Wall Street Journal.

If you missed Jan’s appearance this morning on “Good Morning America” to promote her new book — “Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court and America’s Future” — you can view the video online by clicking here.

On today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “Congress May See Shift on Abortion“; “Libby Jury Selection Includes Some Surprises” (featuring Nina Totenberg); and “Libby Judge Rose Above a Troubled Youth.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Court strikes down California sentencing”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.” The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Cunningham v. California, No. 05-6551, on October 11, 2006. You can access the oral argument transcript at this link. [Update:You can access today’s opinions via this post at “SCOTUSblog.” The dissenting Justices in Cunningham were Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer, and Samuel A. Alito, Jr.]

In early coverage, The Associated Press reports that “High Court Rejects Calif. Sentencing Law.”

Meanwhile, back on October 12, 2006, Brent Kendall of The Daily Journal of California covered the Cunningham oral argument in an article headlined “State’s Scheme for Sentencing Perplexes Court; Justices Try to See Regime in Context of Federal Guides.”

Denniston also reports that the Court today issued its ruling in Osborn v. Haley, No. 05-593, addressing whether a particular lawsuit against a federal employee was properly removed from state court to federal court on the certification of the Attorney General of the United States. Oral argument in this case occurred on October 30, 2006, and you can access the transcript at this link.

And the Court’s third and final opinion in an argued case issued in Jones v. Bock, No. 05-7058, addressing what is necessary for a prisoner to administratively exhaust a claim under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. This case was also argued on October 30, 2006, and you can access the transcript at this link.

You can access today’s Order List at this link.

In news coverage relating to the Order List, The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court Passes in Corruption Case.”

“Monument’s removal adds twist to Bible display appeal; County attorney will tell federal court that case is moot; plaintiff questions timing”: The Houston Chronicle today contains an article that begins, “Days before a major appeals court hearing on a Bible display at a Harris County courthouse, the county has removed a monument that once contained the Bible. County officials say the move Friday was part of the renovation of the old Civil Courts Building, and was unrelated to the hearing scheduled for Tuesday in New Orleans before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But County Attorney Mike Stafford will tell the court Tuesday that the temporary storage of the monument makes the case moot, in addition to arguing the county’s position that a lower court was wrong in ruling that the Bible display was unconstitutional.”

I wrote about this case in the September 5, 2006 installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com, headlined “Monument at Houston Courthouse Tests the Limits of Ten Commandments Rulings.”

“Did 9th Circuit Judges Go AWOL From Oral Argument? One way ‘death is different’ in the 9th Circuit.” This week’s installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com can be accessed here.

“Bad Precedent: Andrew Jackson’s assault on habeas corpus.” In the January 29, 2007 issue of The New Yorker, Caleb Crain has this review of Matthew Warshauer‘s new book, “Andrew Jackson and the Politics of Martial Law: Nationalism, Civil Liberties and Partisanship.”

“Libby Trial to Display Changed Reporter-Source Relations”: Neil A. Lewis has this article today in The New York Times.

And in the January 29, 2007 issue of The New Yorker, Nicholas Lemann has a Talk of the Town comment headlined “Hard Cases: What’s ultimately behind the Lewis Libby trial.”

“Politics and prosecutors”: The Chicago Tribune contains this editorial today.