“Happy Birthday, Roe v. Wade: On the ruling’s anniversary, its fans should celebrate another case, too.” Law Professor Kenji Yoshino has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Objections sustained”: The Palm Beach Post today contains an editorial that begins, “Already, there are at least four reasons why Democratic control of the Senate has helped the country. Those reasons are: Terrence Boyle, William Haynes, William Myers III and Michael Wallace.”

“Bryan Garner routinely interviews judges and others on the art of writing. LawProse maintains a one-of-a-kind video archive of these educational interviews.” Thanks to Amber Taylor of the “Prettier Than Napoleon” blog for drawing to my attention this web site with huge time suck potential.

Three of my favorite clips available via the site are Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner (“Judges are impatient, except for new judges, who may actually care what you have to say”); Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski (“I won’t read blockquotes, but thanks for letting my mind drift to thoughts of snowboarding in Aspen”); and Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook (“To become a better writer, read the work of good writers, not the work of lawyers”). Please note: the foregoing parentheticals contain paraphrases, not direct quotes, of what these judges say in their video clips.

Airplanes now have assault-resistant cockpit doors, but what protects a passenger bus driver from a passenger’s violent assault? A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has today issued a decision affirming an $8 million compensatory damages judgment in favor of a Greyhound Bus passenger who was rendered a paraplegic as a result of a crash that occurred when another passenger violently assaulted the driver of the bus.

A pre-9/11 Salon.com article on the subject of airplane cockpit doors can be accessed here.

In news coverage of the violent assault that gives rise to today’s ruling, The Associated Press reported that “6 dead after bus driver attacked; Greyhound shuts down, but assailant with knife apparently acted alone.” CNN.com reported that “FBI say bus attack wasn’t terrorism,” which was understandably a concern as the attack occurred in early October 2001. And The Tennessean published articles headlined “Greyhound crash kills six; passenger says driver was attacked” and “War stress plagued assailant.”

“Bush Team Signals Shift on Domestic Spying”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition.”

“Justice pushes probe of peers; State Supreme Court judge wants investigation of abuse of power claims, says bitter feud destroying public trust”: This article appears today in The Detroit News.

And The Detroit Free Press reports today that “To end judges’ feud, inquiry is sought.”

“Court: Non-sex offender to stay on list; ‘Draconian’ ruling on Benton Harbor man’s case may have broad implications, lawyer says.” The Detroit News today contains an article that begins, “A Benton Harbor teacher’s name must remain on the Sex Offender Registry, even if he was not convicted of a sex offense listed on the registry, according to an appeals court ruling.”

You can access Tuesday’s ruling of the Michigan Court of Appeals at this link.

“Political Opinions Complicate Screening for Libby Jurors”: Neil A. Lewis has this article today in The New York Times.

And The Washington Post today contains a front page article headlined “In Libby Trial, Big Names Make Jury Picks a Tall Order; Shallow Pool Teems With Ties to Players.”

“Michigan responds on affirmative action”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“U.S. ceases warrantless spy operation; Domestic surveillance will be conducted only with a court order”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

The Boston Globe reports today that “Secret court to oversee wiretapping.”

In The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein reports that “Bush Drops Warrantless Surveillance Program.”

The New York Times contains a news analysis headlined “White House Retreats Under Pressure.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “A Spy Program in From the Cold.”

The Washington Post contains a news analysis headlined “Bush Retreats on Use of Executive Power; Allowing Court’s Role in Surveillance Is Latest Step Back.”

USA Today contains a front page article headlined “Court to oversee wiretap program; Lack of warrants fed controversy.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “No court order needed: FBI, CIA, Pentagon use ‘security letters’ to gather personal data.”

And The Washington Times reports that “FISA court will monitor domestic wiretapping.”

“Lawmaker: Anti-Cohabitation Law Wrong.” The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “In North Dakota, a man and woman who live together without being married are committing a sex crime. It’s right there in the law, a state senator says, alongside the prohibitions against adultery, incest and indecent exposure. Tracy Potter, a freshman Democrat from Bismarck, is asking the state Legislature to end North Dakota’s status as one of seven states that have anti-cohabitation laws on the books. It has rejected three such attempts since 1990.”

“Officer facing court-martial denounces war”: The Los Angeles Times today contains an article that begins, “The nation’s first Army officer to refuse deployment to Iraq urged the public in a statement Wednesday to ‘stop the war so that the death and sacrifices of American soldiers will not be in vain’ after a major legal setback in his court-martial proceedings.”

“Judge is in race for U.S. attorney job; Dickran Tevrizian was asked to apply as L.A.’s top prosecutor, a move many find unusual because he could retire or be a private jurist”: Henry Weinstein and Greg Krikorian have this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“High Court Hears 3 Death Penalty Cases; Capital Punishment Accounts for Larger Share of Justices’ Smaller Workload”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post.

The Austin American-Statesman reports today that “Supreme Court hears arguments in 3 Texas death penalty cases; UT law professors, students travel to Washington on behalf of inmates.”

The Dallas Morning News reports that “High court revisits Texas death-row case; Jury instruction on killer’s mental state, childhood at issue again.”

And The Daily Texan reports that “Supreme Court hears UT faculty; Appellate judges failed to heed decision of top bench, professors claim.”

“Justices say car theft can be cause for deportation”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

And The Washington Times reports today that “Justices uphold deporting alien for car theft.”

“More info sought on gay divorce case”: The Providence (R.I.) Journal today contains an article that begins, “The Rhode Island Supreme Court says it needs more information before it can decide if the state Family Court has jurisdiction to hear a same-sex divorce case involving two Providence women who married in Massachusetts.”

“Md. Wal-Mart law dealt second defeat; U.S. appeals court upholds earlier ruling; Assembly seeks new health care solutions”: This article appears today in The Baltimore Sun.

The New York Times reports today that “Appeals Court Rules for Wal-Mart in Maryland Health Care Case.”

And The Washington Times reports that “Court upholds killing of ‘Wal-Mart bill.’”

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“Show Us The Money: America’s Paper Currency Shortchanges the Blind.” Cyrus Habib has this op-ed today in The Washington Post.

“Detainee’s Letters Give Peek at Life At Guantanamo; Bush Named Ex-Maryland Man One of 14 ‘High-Value’ Prisoners”: The Washington Post contains this article today.

And Reuters reports that “Detainee letters show window into Guantanamo life.”

“Death 31 Years After Shooting Leads to a Murder Indictment”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

And The New York Post today contains an article headlined “Slay Rap in 1974 Shooting.”

All your base jumper are belong to us: The New York Sun today contains an article headlined “Planning a Leap? The Constitution Protects You.”

The New York Times reports today that “Foiled Daredevil Fares Better in Court.”

The New York Daily News contains an article headlined “Jump jerk sails free; Rap tossed vs. daredevil who tried Empire State Bldg. leap” that begins, “The jumping jackass who tried to parachute off the Empire State Building was let off scot-free yesterday by a Manhattan judge – startling police and prosecutors who fear the decision will allow other daredevils to go unpunished.”

And The New York Post contains an article headlined “Nice Chuting; Judge OKs Empire Leap.”

(This post’s title is brought to you by).

“Court to Oversee U.S. Wiretapping in Terror Cases”: The New York Times on Thursday will contain this article.

And McClatchy Newspapers report that “Court to monitor Bush eavesdropping program.”

“Pentagon Aide Regrets Stance on Law Firms for Detainees”: This article will appear Thursday in The New York Times.

And law.com reports that “Bush Official Apologizes for Slap at Guantanamo Detainees’ Lawyers.”

“President Revises Nomination of N. Randy Smith to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals”: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this news release today.

“City loses ‘frivolous’ appeal”: The News Tribune of Tacoma, Washington today contains an article that begins, “Tacoma’s appeal of a woman’s victory in a lawsuit involving the actions of police officers was ‘frivolous,’ a federal court said Tuesday.” You can access yesterday’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link. Thanks to “The Volokh Conspiracy” for the pointer.

My coverage of the panel’s initial ruling on the so-called merits of the appeal can be accessed here.

“Justices Scrutinize Death Penalty in Texas”: Linda Greenhouse will have this article Thursday in The New York Times.

By an evenly divided 6-6 vote, the Tenth Circuit denies initial hearing in banc of a case involving sentencing procedure under Booker v. United States: According to the dissent from denial of en banc review, the three-judge panel’s opinion in this case (also issued today) “injects serious, untoward obstacles to the exercise of the very sentencing discretion by the district courts that Booker was intended to revive. The imposition of a sentence outside the advisory Guideline range in reliance on the discretionary factors in §3553(a) will become painful and complex and will systemically slow the sentencing process.”

You can access today’s order denying initial hearing en banc, the accompanying dissenting opinion in which three of the six judges who voted in favor of en banc review have joined, and the unanimous three-judge panel’s decision in the case at this link.

Here’s a question for procedural mavens in the audience: Because this particular Tenth Circuit appeal was already argued before a three-judge panel, and that panel’s resulting opinion is what has caused the case to nearly go en banc before the panel’s opinion had issued, would such an en banc hearing have constituted “initial” en banc instead of “rehearing” en banc? In my view, once a case is argued and submitted to a three-judge panel for decision in the first instance, any later en banc review would constitute rehearing en banc even if the three-judge panel’s decision never issued. The only difference is that this would constitute court-initiated rehearing en banc, instead of litigant-initiated rehearing en banc. Those who disagree or can shed any light on this procedural issue, including any Tenth Circuit judges in the audience, are invited to share their views via email.

“Justice Dept. Eases Stance on Domestic Spying”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered.”

“Texas Side-Step: Have the Supreme Court’s opinions become suggestions in Texas?” Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “High Court Split Over Texas Death Cases” and “Dismissal Upheld of Md. Wal-Mart Law.”

“Supreme Court Hears Texas Death Penalty Cases; Justices appear ready to give greater deference to the state in administering its capital punishment laws”: law.com’s Tony Mauro provides this news update.

“Dogs to get day in Supreme Court; Date set for park case in Birmingham”: This article appears today in The Detroit Free Press. We know from recent earlier coverage that various Justices on that court don’t much like one another. The Freep provides a sidebar asking “Do the justices even like dogs?” setting forth information about which Justices have animals for pets.

Second Circuit dismisses cross-appeal filed one day too late and affirms district court’s refusal to find excusable neglect: Applying last Term’s per curiam U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Eberhart v. United States, a unanimous three-judge panel today holds that “whether or not the time limit for a cross-appeal is jurisdictional after Eberhart, that decision requires us to enforce the time limit when it is properly invoked by an adverse party.”

Today’s opinion explains that the deadline by which Travelers Indemnity Company had to file its notice of cross-appeal was no later than fourteen days after the opposing party had filed its appeal. Unfortunately, Travelers, represented on appeal by the Simpson Thacher & Bartlett law firm, filed the notice of cross-appeal one day too late because its counsel waited until what they thought was the last day for filing the notice but had “inadvertently calendared the first notice of appeal on their office records as of the day it was received in the lawyers’ office, April 27, 2006, rather as of the day it was filed, April 26, 2006, the date made relevant by Rule 4(a)(3).”

“Supreme Court Reconsiders Death-Penalty Case”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Dahlia Lithwick appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day.”

“Secret Court to Govern Wiretapping Plan”: The Washington Post provides a news update that begins, “The Justice Department announced today that the National Security Agency’s controversial warrantless surveillance program has been placed under the authority of a secret surveillance court, marking an abrupt change in approach by the Bush administration after more than a year of heated debate.”

And The Los Angeles Times provides a news update headlined “Bush seeks court approval for surveillance.”