“Gonzales aide faces Senate investigators”: McClatchy Newspapers provide this report. McClatchy has posted at this link the prepared text of D. Kyle Sampson’s opening statement at tomorrow’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

And The Washington Post provides a news update headlined “Discrepancies on Attorneys’ Firings Blamed on Former Chief of Staff.”

“High court receptive to Wall Street firms’ appeal”: Reuters provides this report.

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Court Case May Impact Shareholder Suits“; “Records Say How CIA Got Padilla Papers“; and “Analysis: Firings Flap Frustrates GOP.”

“State Senate Confirms Fitzgerald As Temporary High Court Justice”: Asher Hawkins of The Legal Intelligencer provides a news update (free access) that begins, “Philadelphia Common Pleas Trial Division Administrative James J. Fitzgerald III has been confirmed by the state Senate to temporarily fill the Pennsylvania Supreme Court seat left vacant late last year when former justice Sandra Schultz Newman left the bench to join Cozen O’Connor.”

For those who support so-called “merit selection” rather than popular election of judges, this news means that a whopping 28.57 percent of the Justices now serving on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania were appointed rather than elected to serve on that court.

Access today’s nude dancing decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: You can click here to read today’s ruling, which constitutes a victory for nude dancing in Hartford, Vermont. In related news, the Google Maps service confirms that a place called Hartford, Vermont actually exists.

“This seemingly straightforward appeal of a denial of disability benefits presents difficult issues involving our standard of review in cases arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. In fact, the issues are so difficult that this case has generated three opinions.” So begins a decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued today.

The two active First Circuit judges in the panel, although disagreeing over how the appeal should be resolved on the merits, find common ground in calling for the First Circuit to consider the question en banc. The third judge on the panel, Senior Circuit Judge Bruce M. Selya, does not agree that en banc review is merited. He explains:

[E]n banc proceedings tend to be notoriously wasteful of scarce judicial resources. There seems to me to be little point in trading a workable and battle-tested standard of review for yet another plunge into the vortex of en banc consideration — a plunge that threatens to splinter the court and to make the standard of review less transparent. Even if one assumes, for argument’s sake, that our standard of review could profit from an attempted clarification with respect to “structural conflict” cases, the unevenness in the decisions of the various courts of appeals strongly suggests that any such undertaking should be left to the Supreme Court (when and if the Justices deem the time propitious).

As a Senior Circuit Judge, Selya does not get a vote on whether to rehear this case en banc, but he could elect to participate in an en banc rehearing if one is granted in this case.

Access online the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument: The Court has posted the transcript of oral argument in Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., No. 06-484, at this link.

“Time to Go”: This editorial, calling for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, appears today at National Review Online.

And Byron York has an essay entitled “What Really Happened in the U.S. Attorneys Mess: A look at the case of Carol Lam.”

“The American workplace would be a seething cauldron if workers could with impunity pepper their employer and eventually the EEOC and the courts with complaints of being offended by remarks and behaviors unrelated to the complainant except for his having overheard, or heard of, them.” So writes Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner on behalf of a unanimous three- judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit today.

Today’s opinion, replete with discussions of “cat rape,” Avon products, and a manager’s having referred to a female employee other than the plaintiff as a “fat ass,” concludes:

The American workplace would be a seething cauldron if workers could with impunity pepper their employer and eventually the EEOC and the courts with complaints of being offended by remarks and behaviors unrelated to the complainant except for his having overheard, or heard of, them. The pluralism of our society is mirrored in the workplace, creating endless occasions for offense. Civilized people refrain from words and conduct that offend the people around them, but not all workers are civilized all the time. Title VII is not a code of civility.

You can access the complete ruling at this link.

“The YouTube Defense: Human rights go viral.” Online at Slate, Andrew K. Woods has a jurisprudence essay in which he writes, “During John Roberts’ and Samuel Alito’s recent confirmation hearings, senators and pundits debated whether the justices ought to try to gauge public sentiment. After all, critics say, the point of an unelected judiciary is to ensure fidelity to the Constitution, regardless of mass sentiment. In practice, however, judges (especially Supreme Court justices) have enormous discretion in how to resolve legal questions. And in our culture of red alerts and public panic, judges naturally tend to privilege security over individual rights.”

“Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Against Rumsfeld”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld cannot be tried on allegations of torture in overseas military prisons, a federal judge said Tuesday in a case he described as ‘lamentable.’ U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan threw out a lawsuit brought on behalf of nine former prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said Rumsfeld cannot be held personally responsible for actions taken in connection with his government job.”

And Reuters reports that “Judge dismisses Rumsfeld torture lawsuit.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by clicking here (4.5 MB PDF file).

“Taxpayer Files Reply Brief in Murphy“: This post, providing online access to the reply brief, appears today at the “TaxProf Blog.” This case is pending on panel rehearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In its now-vacated original ruling, the three-judge panel held that “insofar as §104(a)(2) permits the taxation of compensation for a personal injury, which compensation is unrelated to lost wages or earnings, that provision is unconstitutional.”

My coverage of the panel’s original ruling, which issued on August 22, 2006, can be accessed here.

“Historians lose ‘Da Vinci Code’ plagiarism appeal”: Reuters provides this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “Court Says ‘Da Vinci Code’ Not a Copy.”

“Tax Cheat Escapes $100 Million Repayment”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Poorly written Justice Department documents cost the federal government more than $100 million in what was supposed to have been the crowning moment of the biggest tax prosecution ever.”

And The Washington Post reports that “Mogul Sentenced to 9 Years For Tax Evasion and Fraud.”

“Sex change prompts alimony fight”: The St. Petersburg Times today contains an article that begins, “In a case that could set precedent for transgendered individuals, a Seminole man asked a Pinellas circuit judge Tuesday to set aside his alimony requirements because his ex-wife is now a man.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Man Says Sex Change Should End Alimony.”

“N.H. bill to repeal death penalty fails; Officer’s slaying fuels debate”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.

And The Concord Monitor reports today that “House rejects death-penalty repeal; Opponents tell story of officer’s shooting.”

“Former Death-Row Inmate Would Get $1.9 Million; If Court Approves, Va. Will Compensate Wrongfully Convicted Man Who Came Within Days of Execution”: The Washington Post contains this article today.

And The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported yesterday that “Virginia agrees to murder case deal; $1.9 million would go to Earl Washington, cleared in Culpeper woman’s death.”

“Gonzales TV Appearance Sheds No Light on Firings”: This article appears today in The Washington Post, along with an article headlined “On the Firing Line: D. Kyle Sampson was a team player; Tomorrow, Alberto Gonzales’s former chief of staff will tell a Senate panel who called the shots.”

The Chicago Tribune reports today that “Gonzales bolts Chicago briefing.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Gonzales is on a thin branch.”

And The Washington Times reports that “Law firm to help in Justice inquiry.”

“New Drive Afoot to Pass Equal Rights Amendment”: The Washington Post today contains a front page article that begins, “Federal and state lawmakers have launched a new drive to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, reviving a feminist goal that faltered a quarter-century ago when the measure did not gain the approval of three-quarters of the state legislatures. The amendment, which came three states short of enactment in 1982, has been introduced in five state legislatures since January. Yesterday, House and Senate Democrats reintroduced the measure under a new name — the Women’s Equality Amendment — and vowed to bring it to a vote in both chambers by the end of the session.”

And The Washington Times reports today that “Democrats revive efforts for ERA.”

“The Libby Precedent: Why government officials prefer to take the Fifth.” The Wall Street Journal contains this editorial (free access) today.

“Failures at FBI Acknowledged; Mueller Accepts Criticism, Proposes Alternative to Controversial ‘Letters'”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

The New York Times reports today that “Senators Cite F.B.I. Failures as Chief Promises Change.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “FBI has some explaining to do; Senators question the bureau’s director about abuses of power; He urges them not to gut a Patriot Act provision.”

USA Today contains articles headlined “FBI chief lobbies for national security letters; In wake of misuse, panel greets plea with skepticism” and “Mueller says U.S. attorneys’ firings didn’t affect cases.”

The Washington Times reports that “Senate Judiciary panel questions FBI competence.” In addition, Gary Aldrich has an op-ed entitled “Patriot Act debacle.”

McClatchy Newspapers report that “FBI didn’t mean to break the law, Mueller says.”

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution contains an editorial entitled “Snoops out of control: Lawmakers who let FBI chip away at privacy rights shouldn’t be shocked by its use of a sledgehammer.”

And The St. Petersburg Times contains an editorial entitled “It’s time to rein in the FBI’s snooping.”

“Court Case May Impact Shareholder Suits”: The Associated Press provides this preview of the case being argued today in the U.S. Supreme Court.

And The Chicago Tribune reports today that “Tellabs appeal could hinder investor suits.”

“The Man Who Would Move the Barnes”: The New York Times today contains this article about the Barnes Foundation. The article reports that “The gallery’s relocation to a new building on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway, allowed by a December 2004 court decision that overruled the collector’s express mandate on the ground of financial exigency, remains controversial. The move, which is scheduled for late 2009 or 2010, is opposed by a coalition that includes Merion residents, Barnes students and alumni and suburban legislators. Many art critics have also condemned it.”

“Result of Military Trial Is Familiar to Civilians”: This article appears today in The New York Times, along with an article headlined “Australian Detainee’s Life of Wandering Ends With Plea Deal.”

The Los Angeles Times today contains an article headlined “Mixed reaction to Hicks’ plea bargain; Some call the first such trial at Guantanamo a success; others cite politics and pressure in the Australian terrorism suspect’s deal.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Guantanamo Plea Leaves Questions.”

Available online from National Public Radio: Today’s broadcast of “Day to Day” contained audio segments entitled “Will Alberto Gonzales Withstand the Political Siege?” (featuring Dahlia Lithwick) and “Guantanamo Detainee to Face Sentencing.”

And this evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained audio segments entitled “A U.S. Attorney Is Fired, and Onlookers Wonder” and “Military Officials Discuss Sentence for Hicks.”

RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Trafficker or Healer? And Who’s the Victim?” This article appears today in The New York Times.

“The issue in this case is whether lump-sum proceeds received from a sale of future interest in lottery payments should be characterized for income tax purposes as a capital gain or as ordinary income.” A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit answers “ordinary income” in a decision issued today.

“Who’s Blaming Whom: Where the fingers are pointing in the Bush administration meltdown.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

McClatchy Newspapers are reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Guantanamo prison likely to remain open” and “Critics: still a need to fix Guantanamo court system.”

“Gonzales’ Support in Congress Slipping”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ allies on Capitol Hill grew scarce Tuesday as he left it largely to aides to carry out President Bush’s order to straighten out the story behind the firing of eight federal prosecutors.”

Can President Bush force the Texas judiciary to disregard its rules of procedural default to consider on the merits a Mexican death row inmate’s Article 36 Vienna Convention claim? In November 2006, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals — that State’s highest court in criminal cases — answered that question “no.” I provided detailed coverage of that ruling in this post.

Today, in a post you can access here, Lyle Denniston reports at “SCOTUSblog” that the Solicitor General has filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals erred in failing to answer the question “yes.”

“Whistleblower Suits Limited by Court in Boeing Case”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News provides this report.

“Wall Street seeks immunity from IPO antitrust lawsuit”: MarketWatch provides this report.

The Associated Press reports that “Court Weighs Price Setting Case.”

And Reuters reports that “US high court receptive to Wall St. firms’ appeal.”

You can access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Billing, No. 05-1157, by clicking here.

“Roberts’s Salary: Where Does It Stack Up?” Ben Winograd has this interesting post today at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog.”

Supreme Court of Texas refuses to extend that State’s grandparent visitation law to step-grandparents: Last Friday, the highest court of Texas in civil cases issued a unanimous per curiam opinion that begins:

In 2005, the Legislature substantially amended the grandparent access statute, codified at Family Code sections 153.432-34. The statute now includes a presumption that a parent acts in his child’s best interest, and it permits biological or adoptive grandparents to obtain court-ordered access to a grandchild only if they show that denial of access will “significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional well-being.” Id. §153.433(2). We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding access here because the step-grandfather is neither a biological nor an adoptive grandparent, and the grandmother did not overcome the statutory presumption favoring the children’s father.

You can access the opinion online in PDF and HTML formats.