“Videographer, Blogger Freed from Prison”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Talk of the Nation.”

“Six U.S. Attorneys Given 2nd Posting in Washington”: The Washington Post on Tuesday will contain an article that begins, “A half-dozen sitting U.S. attorneys also serve as aides to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales or are assigned other Washington postings, performing tasks that take them away from regular duties in their districts for months or even years at a time, according to officials and department records.”

“Federal court: Jury should hear case against UNC soccer coach.” The Associated Press provides this report on today’s en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. My earlier coverage appears at this link.

Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro reports that “Supreme Court Quickens Pace With Big Cases to Come.”

In other news, “Attorney Named on ‘Don’t Date Him’ Web Site Fails to Shut Down Online Operations.” My coverage from earlier today appears at this link.

An article reports that “N.Y. Chief Justice Says Judiciary Is Prepared to Sue to Obtain Raises; Kaye also outlines steps to put judges’ pay back on bargaining table.”

And The National Law Journal contains an article headlined “Who’d Want This Job, Anyway? New U.S. Attorneys may be vexed by disarray, short stays.”

“This appeal presents the difficult issue of whether an admittedly inappropriate environment created by a women’s collegiate soccer coach was sufficiently hostile to deprive a player of the benefits of or participation in the team or her education.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit today issued its en banc ruling in Jennings v. University of North Carolina. The trial court had granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants on plaintiff’s claims under Title IX and the federal civil rights act.

By a vote of 8-2, today’s en banc ruling reinstates the plaintiff’s Title IX claim and also overturns the grant of summary judgment on the plaintiff’s civil rights claim as against two defendants. The quote that appears as the title of this post comes from the concurring opinion of Circuit Judge Roger L. Gregory.

Circuit Judge M. Blane Michael, the author of today’s en banc majority opinion, had dissented from the original three-judge panel’s ruling, which had affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. My coverage of that ruling, issued one year ago Wednesdsay, appears at this link.

“State and federal courts have struggled to apply the Crawford concept of testimonial hearsay.” And today the Supreme Court of California joins that struggle in a ruling that you can access here.

“D.C. Appeals to Keep Gun Ban”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “District of Columbia officials warned a federal appeals court Monday that its rejection of the city’s handgun ban creates a precedent that could severely limit gun control.”

Update: “SCOTUSblog” links here to the text of the District of Columbia’s petition for rehearing en banc filed today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

A loss that’s difficult to calculate does not equal “no loss,” and an exceptionally light criminal sentence does not make the defendant a prevailing party under the Hyde Amendment: Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner issued this federal Sentencing Guidelines ruling today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

“Clement to Supervise Gonzales Investigation”: “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times” provides a post that begins, “Solicitor General Paul Clement has once again been pulled into the middle of a dust-up between Congress and the Justice Department.”

“Justice Castille’s thin-skinned protest will stir state Supreme Court critics”: This editorial appears today in The Allentown Morning Call.

Last Thursday, The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review published an editorial entitled “Castille v. Ledewitz.”

And today’s installment of my monthly “Upon Further Review” column for The Legal Intelligencer of Philadelphia is headlined “Justice Castille: Don’t let ’em see you sweat” (free access).

State trial court in Pittsburgh dismisses local attorney’s defamation lawsuit against the owner of DontDateHimGirl.com for lack of personal jurisdiction: The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania has issued this decision in the lawsuit captioned Hollis v. Joseph.

ABCNews.com covered the filing of the lawsuit in a report headlined “Women Rat, Man Sues; DontDateHimGirl.com Is Getting Sued for Defamation.” And ABC News mentioned the case more recently in a report headlined “Principal Sues Student for Cyber Defamation; Teen Posted MySpace Profile Stating Man’s Affinity for Porn, Booze, Underage Students.”

You can access the pleadings in the Hollis v. Joseph case via the trial court’s online docket entries at this link. And some of my recent earlier coverage of the case can be accessed here and here.

“Critics Question Status of Abramoff Probe”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

Supreme Court of California to issue decision deciding scope of “testimonial hearsay” under the U.S. Supreme Court‘s ruling in Crawford v. Washington: California’s highest court has announced that it plans to issue a ruling today in a case that presents the following question:

Are all statements made by an ostensible crime victim to a police officer in response to general investigative questioning “testimonial hearsay” within the meaning of Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36, and inadmissible in the absence of an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, or does “testimonial hearsay” include only statements made in response to a formal interview at a police station?

The decision is scheduled to be released at 1 p.m. eastern time today and, once available, can be accessed via this link.

“May the Best Appellate Lawyer Win, Unless the Facts or Law Dictate Otherwise”: This week’s installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com can be accessed here.

“Time to act on auto emissions”: The Chicago Tribune contains this editorial today.

“Guantanamo detainees resume hunger strike; Prisoners protest a move into a harsher facility, according to their lawyers”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

And The New York Times reports today that “Guantanamo Detainees Stage Hunger Strike.”

The Toronto Globe and Mail is reporting: Today’s newspaper contains articles headlined “Two-thirds back electing judges; Twenty-five years later, poll shows strong support for Charter“; “Judges garner greater trust than politicians, survey finds; Use of notwithstanding clause remains divisive issue among respondents“; and “Supreme Court cautious about dictating government spending.”

“No predictions on Kamehameha decision”: The Honolulu Advertiser today contains an article that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court could issue a decision as early as next Monday that would either leave Kamehameha Schools elated over the end of the legal challenge to its Hawaiians-first admission policy or set the stage for the most significant high-court ruling involving Native Hawaiians in years.”

“Off-target on child porn: Two recent legal cases illustrate overreach and ineffectiveness by Congress in a worthy fight.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Gingrich joins call for Gonzales to step down; The former speaker is the latest Republican to break ranks with the administration, which still stands behind the attorney general”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

The New York Times reports today that “Gingrich Faults Gonzales for Attorneys ‘Mess.’”

And The Washington Post contains an editorial entitled “The Iglesias Episode: The firing of the U.S. attorney in New Mexico has not been adequately explained.”

“Texas men’s innocence puts a county on trial; DNA is expected to clear a convicted rapist, as it has 3 of his friends”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

Must be the April Fool’s issue: The current issue of The Harvard Law Record contains articles headlined “Tired of Fickle Humans, Zeus Appoints Kagan Supreme Justice of the Universe“; “Angry Students Stage Bluebook Burning“; “Law Review Breeding Super-Minority to Take Over as President“; and “Autoadmit Lifts Veil of Anonymity.”

“Judges Take On Dred Scott Case; Breyer, appeals court judges reconsider most infamous legal decision”: This article appears today in The Harvard Crimson.

“Carbon Ruling: A Welcome First Step.” Christine Todd Whitman has this op-ed today in The Washington Post.

“Another Layer of Scandal”: The New York Times today contains an editorial that begins, “As Congress investigates the politicization of the United States attorney offices by the Bush administration, it should review the extraordinary events the other day in a federal courtroom in Wisconsin.”

My earlier coverage of the Seventh Circuit’s order to enter a judgment of acquittal in the case of Georgia Thompson can be accessed here and here.

“Getting Beyond Race: Justice O’Connor ponders the twilight of affirmative action.” John Fund has this essay online today at OpinionJournal.

The New York Sun is reporting: In today’s newspaper, Josh Gerstein reports that “Al-Arian Makes New Bid To End Imprisonment.”

And Joseph Goldstein has articles headlined “City’s Tax War Set To Erupt at High Court; Win Against India May Presage Claims on Other Countries” and “First Amendment Defense Is Pursued in Hezbollah TV Case.”

Available online at FindLaw: Michael C. Dorf has an essay entitled “The Supreme Court’s Global Warming Ruling May Not Slow Global Warming, But it Does Restore Some Common Sense to Standing Doctrine.”

And Howard M. Wasserman has an essay entitled “The Supreme Court’s Recent Decision in Wallace v. Kato: Complicating the Process for Civil Rights Plaintiffs Challenging Unconstitutional Convictions.”