“Lawyers debate alleged ban on voting rights for mentally ill”: The Associated Press provides this report from St. Louis.

“In Wake of Seven Firings, Branches Clash Over Interim U.S. Attorney Nominees”: Marcia Coyle has this article online at law.com.

“MLB Players Petition Court Over Steroids”: David Kravets of The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The Major League Baseball Players Association asked a federal appeals court late Monday to revisit its December decision to allow investigators probing steroids in sports to use the names and urine samples of more than 100 players who tested positive for performance enhancing drugs.”

“Judgment Pay”: Saturday in The Wall Street Journal, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volcker had this op-ed (pass-through link) arguing in favor of higher pay for federal judges.

“House Names Courthouse After Rush Sr.” The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Democrats joined Republicans on Monday in voting to name a Missouri courthouse after Rush H. Limbaugh Sr.” The courthouse will be a part of the newly announced “excellence in jurisprudence” network.

My earlier coverage appears at this link, while the proposed legislation can be accessed here.

“Rehnquist’s Skeletons, Part 3: Was the former chief justice a racist?” That’s the title of today’s installment of Slate’s “Hot Document.”

The Ninth Circuit rulez! The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has posted online for comment proposed amendments to that court’s local rules.

Here are some highlights of the proposed amendments for fellow appellate geeks in the audience.

The proposed amendments would provide guidance on when FRAP 28(j) letters should be filed. Hint: the correct answer is not “At very last possible moment.”

The proposed amendments would mandate that the first volume of the record excerpts be limited to the orders, decisions, and opinions under review, so that the judges won’t have to carry around a whole bunch of extra, um, stuff just to travel with the briefs and the trial court’s explanation for its ruling. The court would also like input on whether the balance of the record excerpts should continue to be ordered chronologically or if those materials can be set forth in some other even more random sequence that’s sure to perplex everyone other than counsel for appellant.

And the final proposed change that merits mention addresses the filing of amicus briefs both in connection with pending rehearing petitions and after rehearing has been granted. One interesting subpart of this proposed rule addresses the prospect of amicus briefs supporting or opposing rehearing that could precipitate recusals. Back in February 2005, I wrote about the Second Circuit‘s attempt to deal with this issue an installment of my “Upon Further Review” column published in The Legal Intelligencer headlined “A Federal Appellate Court Attempts To Thwart Strategic Recusals On Appeal“.

“When a Case Name (Miranda) Becomes Not Only a Household Word But a Chic Female Name, Something Went Wrong”: Law Professor Jeremy M. Miller has posted this essay (abstract with links for download) online at SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“).

“Utah Considers Abortion Ban”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day.”

“Why Did the Bush Administration Pass Over Michael McConnell?” Marty Lederman had this post yesterday at the “Balkinization” blog.

Earlier, Will Baude had a related post at “Crescat Sententia.”

Is it a retirement “dream home” or a nightmarish breach of copyright that cannot be re-sold or leased? A man looking to build his retirement “dream home” near Charlotte, North Carolina was dissatisfied with the design proposed by an architect that he had hired. Seeking new ideas, he ventured to an expensive residential area some thirty miles away, where he saw under construction a French country-style house whose design he liked.

The owner of that house allowed the builder to give the man a copy of the architect’s plans, and the man commenced building his own home using those plans on his plot of land thirty miles away. The architect whose plans the man was using had copyrighted those plans, and that architect sued claiming copyright infringement.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit today issued this decision upholding the trial court’s split decision in the case. The architect was entitled to payment for the plans and may, on remand, pursue return of the documentation. But the man who owns the house, after paying for the plans, will have the right to use or dispose of the house however he wishes once he is done using it himself.

Just another boring week in the life of a professor who left Harvard Law School to teach at Washington University in St. Louis School of Law: Last week, Samuel R. Bagenstos taught a class with Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. (see the photos here).

And today, Bagenstos argued an appeal in St. Louis before an Eighth Circuit panel that included retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (download the oral argument audiotape here in mp3 format).

“Hazmat Teams Called to Va. Supreme Court”: The Associated Press provides this report.

A three-judge panel of Sixth Circuit judges, sitting by designation on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, affirms federal criminal defendant’s conviction for attempting to destroy the federal courthouse in Chicago: You can access today’s ruling at this link. The decision contains an interesting discussion of whether the location of the trial should have been moved from the very courthouse that the defendant was accused ot trying to destroy.

“Taking on Guantanamo: Assigned to defend a Guantanamo detainee, jag lawyer Charles Swift joined up with legal scholar Neal Katyal and sued the president and secretary of defense over the new military-tribunal system. With their 2006 Supreme Court victory overridden by the Republican Congress, and Swift’s navy career at an end, they are fighting on.” Marie Brenner has this lengthy article in the March 2007 issue of Vanity Fair magazine.

“Irrational Sentencing, Top To Bottom”: Columnist Stuart Taylor Jr. has this essay today in The National Journal.

“Lawyers contend R.I. should grant same-sex divorce”: This article appears today in The Providence Journal.

“Cole victims’ lawsuit will resume this week; Sudan, the defendant, bows out; new al-Qaida details possible”: The Richmond Times-Dispatch contains this article today.

“House takes first look at new abortion ban”: This article appears today in The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

“Marsupial Alert: Don’t Refer to Appellate Judges as a ‘Kangaroo Court.'” Today’s installment of my weekly “On Appeal” column for law.com is at this link.

“Can attorney keep his cool before ‘hot bench’? Portland’s Scott Shorr presents his argument in the case against national insurance companies.” The Oregonian today contains this front page article. As I previously mentioned here, yesterday’s newspaper contained a related article.

“A Historic Moment if Cheney Testifies Live, as Expected”: This article appears today in The New York Times, along with an article headlined “Cheney Testimony in Libby Trial Would Carry High Risk.”

And The Washington Post reports today that “Media Figures May Be Reluctant Defense Witnesses in Libby Case.”

“A compelling look at the Supreme Court”: Columnist Nat Hentoff has this op-ed today in The Washington Times.

“Germain Critiques Taxpayer’s Brief in Murphy“: This post appears today at “TaxProf Blog.”

“The Litigation-Filled Life of Anna Nicole Smith, and the Legal Aftermath of Her Demise”: Joanna Grossman has this essay online today at FindLaw.