“Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Restricting Campaign Ads”: This segment (transcript with link to audio) featuring Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal appeared on yesterday evening’s broadcast of the PBS program “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.”

On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “White House Political Office Subject of Probe“; “FBI Rewrites Rules on National Security Letters“; “New Hampshire Leans Toward Civil-Union Bill“; and “Abortion Debate: Right to Life Spokesman” (RealPlayer required).

Supreme Court of California to decide First Amendment implications of injunction prohibiting defendant from continuing to repeat defamatory statements to third-parties: California’s highest court has announced that it plans to issue a ruling today in a case captioned Balboa Island Village v. Lemen. The case presents the following question:

When a trial court has found that a defendant in a defamation action has made repeated untruthful defamatory statements against the plaintiff and that pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief in the event of repeated statements in the future, may the trial court issue an injunction prohibiting defendant from continuing to make the same defamatory statements to third parties or does such an injunction constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech?

The ruling is scheduled to appear online at 1 p.m. eastern time today, and you can access it via this link.

Back on January 29, 2007, Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times reported on the case in an article headlined “Woman’s crusade against bar spawns free speech case; Anne Lemen just wants to say what she pleases about a Balboa Island restaurant and bar; A court has forbidden her to, and that sets up a dispute over prior restraint.”

The ruling under review from California’s Court of Appeal for the Fourth District can be accessed here.

Finally, Peter Blumberg of the Daily Journal of California discussed the case in an essay entitled “Citation Rules Mean Equal Treatment Isn’t Guaranteed.”

“Equality in the War on Terror”: Law Professor Neal K. Katyal has posted this article (abstract with link for download) online at SSRN. The article will appear in a forthcoming issue of Stanford Law Review.

“How feds got bomb suspect: Iowa man accused of threatening companies to inflate stock prices.” This article appears today in The Chicago Tribune. The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “The sleuths and The Bishop.” And the newspaper has posted online at this link a copy of the federal criminal complaint filed in the case.

USA Today reports today that “Man accused of threatening companies with bombs.”

The Des Moines Register reports that “Feds arrest Iowan for mail bombs; John Tompkins of Dubuque allegedly sent threats as the ‘Bishop.’”

And The Telegraph Herald of Dubuque reports that “Dubuque man arrested in pipe-bomb case.”

“Justices may ease limits on ‘issue ads’; Some groups may be permitted to mention candidates in preelection spots, exempting them from a broadcast ban”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

In today’s issue of USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Justices look set to allow ‘issue ads’ naming candidates.”

In The Boston Globe, Charlie Savage reports that “Campaign finance law challenged; Justices review McCain-Feingold.”

In The New York Sun, Joseph Goldstein reports that “Some Justices Appear Ready To Rule Against McCain-Feingold.”

And The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that “Campaign finance law returns to court; Abortion foes tell U.S. justices that speech was curbed.”

“Officer’s widow notifies city that she may sue”: Today’s edition of The New Haven Register contains an article that begins, “The widow of a city police officer who was fatally struck while directing traffic at a road-construction site last October has put the city on notice that she may sue. The notice, filed on behalf of Deanna Picagli and her children, was received April 16 by the city clerk, but it does not mean a lawsuit is imminent.”

And today in The Hartford Courant, a letter to the editor appears under the heading “Judge Should Be Prosecuted.”

“Fewer apply to Yale Law; Officials cite normal trends as reason behind 10% drop in Law School applications”: The Yale Daily News contains this article today.

“Renzi Aide Called U.S. Attorney to Ask About Probe; Chief of Staff Inquired About Land Deal Investigation; Prosecutor Among Eight Who Were Fired”: This article appears today in The Washington Post, along with an article headlined “Hill Subpoenas Approved for Rice, Other Bush Officials; As Democrats Seek Administration Testimony on Various Issues, Ex-Justice Aide Receives Limited Immunity.” Dana Milbank’s “Washington Sketch” column is headlined “‘Subpoenafest’: Democratic Tigers and Republican Guerrillas.” And columnist Robert D. Novak has an op-ed entitled “Bush’s Barricade.”

The New York Times today contains an article headlined “Flexing Muscles, Democrats Issue 3 Subpoenas.” And an editorial is entitled “Another Dubious Firing.”

The Washington Times reports that “Congressional panels subpoena Rice, Rove aide.”

And in The Chicago Tribune, columnist Steve Chapman has an op-ed entitled “Man of principle (Peter’s).”

“Lawyer’s Price For Missing Pants: $65 Million.” Today in The Washington Post, Metro columnist Marc Fisher has an essay that begins, “When the neighborhood dry cleaner misplaced Roy Pearson’s pants, he took action. He complained. He demanded compensation. And then he sued. Man, did he sue. Two years, thousands of pages of legal documents and many hundreds of hours of investigative work later, Pearson is seeking to make Custom Cleaners pay — would you believe more than the payroll of the entire Washington Nationals roster?”

“Spitzer Pushing Bill to Shore Up Abortion Rights”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “Gov. Eliot Spitzer said Wednesday that he planned to introduce legislation to overhaul the state’s pioneering but antiquated abortion law, shoring up abortion rights in New York. The proposal follows the United States Supreme Court’s decision last week to uphold the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, at a time when several other states are moving to tighten restrictions on abortion.”

And Newsday reports today that “Spitzer to push abortion bill.”

“N.H. Is Set To Approve Same-Sex Civil Unions”: This front page article appears today in The Washington Post.

“EPA Accused of Flouting Supreme Court”: The Associated Press provides this report.

And The Los Angeles Times reports today that “State may sue EPA over clean air law; The governor says he wants action on 2005 bid to cut greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.”

“Supreme Confusion: The Supreme Court’s most recent decision on abortion is part of a bigger problem.” Law Professor Charles Fried has this op-ed today in The New York Times.

And today in The Washington Times, Paul Greenberg has an op-ed entitled “A small step toward life.”

“Court Asked to Limit Lawyers at Guantanamo”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “The Justice Department has asked a federal appeals court to impose tighter restrictions on the hundreds of lawyers who represent detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the request has become a central issue in a new legal battle over the administration’s detention policies. Saying that visits by civilian lawyers and attorney-client mail have caused ‘intractable problems and threats to security at Guantanamo,’ a Justice Department filing proposes new limits on the lawyers’ contact with their clients and access to evidence in their cases that would replace more expansive rules that have governed them since they began visiting Guantanamo detainees in large numbers in 2004.”

“Justices, 5 to 4, Overturn 3 Texas Death Sentences”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.

Today in The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that “High court overturns 3 death sentences in Texas; The rulings, all decided on 5-4 votes, cite flaws in the state’s old system of capital sentencing.”

In The Houston Chronicle, Patty Reinert reports that “High court tosses 3 Texas death sentences; Ruling could affect dozens of state’s inmates facing execution.”

The Dallas Morning News reports that “Three Texas death sentences tossed; Dallas County case included as high court faults jury instruction.”

The Austin American-Statesman reports that “U.S. court tosses 3 Texas death sentences; Three Texas death sentences overturned over jury rules, putting 44 more in question.”

The San Antonio Express-News reports that “Ruling for 3 Texas inmates offers hope for 47 on death row.”

And The Amarillo Globe-News reports that “Death ruling tossed; Decision could be far-reaching.”

“The Supreme Court’s Split Decision to Uphold the Federal ‘Partial-Birth Abortion’ Ban: Why, Despite the Court’s Disclaimers, It Will Be Hugely Influential.” Edward Lazarus has this essay today at FindLaw.

“Prosecutor Leading Probe Into Lawyer’s Murder Resigns”: law.com provides a report that begins, “The federal prosecutor who was leading the investigation into the still-unsolved murder of Washington, D.C., lawyer Robert Wone abruptly left his post last month, has hired a personal lawyer and will resign on Friday.”

“This case concerns the reasonable expectation of privacy associated with password-protected computers.” A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued an interesting ruling today in an appeal in which a criminal defendant challenges the search that discovered the presence of child pornography on his computer.

The defendant is an adult who was residing with his elderly parents. The police knocked on the door of the residence one day when the suspect was not home and asked the defendant’s elderly parent for permission to search the suspect’s computer. The father gave consent, but according to the defendant the computer in question was password protected and the father did not know the password. The police used a program that creates a mirror image of the hard drive and allows the authorities to access the contents of that mirror image without any need for the password.

The majority rejects the defendant’s challenge to the permission to search. The dissenting opinion of Senior Circuit Judge Monroe G. McKay begins, “This case concerns the reasonable expectation of privacy associated with password-protected computers. In examining the contours of a third party’s apparent authority to consent to the search of a home computer, the majority correctly indicates that the extent to which law enforcement knows or should reasonably suspect that password protection is enabled is critical. We differ, however, over the extent to which the burden of inquiry should rest with law enforcement personnel. More specifically, I take issue with the majority’s implicit holding that law enforcement may use software deliberately designed to automatically bypass computer password protection based on third-party consent without the need to make a reasonable inquiry regarding the presence of password protection and the third party’s access to that password.”

“Justices Reconsider Campaign Finance; Some Are Skeptical Of Earlier Ruling”: Robert Barnes will have this article Thursday in The Washington Post.

“Justices Raise Doubts on Campaign Finance”: Linda Greenhouse will have this article Thursday in The New York Times.

McClatchy Newspapers are reporting: Michael Doyle has an article headlined “Justices revisit campaign-finance reform, political speech.”

And in other news, “Gonzales asked to answer more questions before Congress.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “Group Argues Campaign Ad Case in High Court” (featuring Nina Totenberg) and “House Judiciary Panel Gives Goodling Immunity.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Dead Duck Walking: The Supreme Court takes on those nasty campaign commercials.” Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

“Supreme Court’s Support of McCain-Feingold Law Could Be Weakening”: law.com’s Tony Mauro provides this news update.

“Supreme Court Debates Campaign Finance Act”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post provides this news update.

And James Vicini of Reuters reports that “U.S. court seems split over broadcast political ads.”

Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor issues opinion for a unanimous three-judge Eighth Circuit panel: You can access today’s ruling at this link. At issue in the case — the reliability of sweat patch results to determine whether a probationer has used illegal drugs.

“Judge Kozinski Talks About Cyberlaw”: Eric Goldman has this post at his “Technology & Marketing Law Blog.” You can access the interview audio via this link.

“Free Speech Gets Another Day in Court”: U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had this op-ed (pass-through link via “Election Law“) yesterday in The Wall Street Journal.

Yesterday at National Review Online, James Bopp Jr. had an essay entitled “Silencing Criticism: The history of sham arguments for McCain-Feingold.” And today, Andrew C. McCarthy has an essay entitled “Gonzales and McCain-Feingold: The attorney general abandoned the Right before it abandoned him.”

And in the April 30, 2007 issue of The Weekly Standard, Charlotte Allen has an essay entitled “The Right to Life Lobby vs. McCain: They’re not fighting about abortion.”

“High Court Weighs Campaign Ads”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Dahlia Lithwick appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Day to Day.”

“Top court overturns three Texas death sentences”: James Vicini of Reuters provides this report.

“Campaign Ad Restrictions May Be Loosened by U.S. Supreme Court”: Kristin Jensen and Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News provide this report.

The Associated Press reports that “Court Skeptical of Law’s Ad Limits.”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Analysis: ‘Blackout’ on campaign ads in doubt.”

And at his “Election Law” blog, Law Professor Rick Hasen has a post titled “Initial Thoughts on Oral Argument in WRTL.”

Access online the transcripts of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments: The oral argument transcript in Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., No. 06-969, can be accessed here.

And the oral argument transcript in Watson v. Phillip Morris Co., No. 05-1284, can be accessed here.

Programming note: I’m one of the luncheon speakers today at The Heritage Foundation‘s Spring 2007 Legal Strategy Forum, which is taking place in Philadelphia. Additional posts will appear here this afternoon.

Update: It was a pleasure to meet so many fans of this blog at the event, and to finally meet in person co-panelist Paul Mirengoff of the “Power Line” blog.”

“High Court Throws Out 3 Death Sentences”: The Associated Press provides this report.