Available online from law.com: An article is headlined “11th Circuit: Interests in Federal Civil Rights Cases Trump Hospitals’ Shield Against Disclosure; Black surgeon charging bias gets access to peer reviews.” My earlier coverage of the ruling appears at this link.

And in news from New Jersey, “N.J. Justices Rule Death Penalty Barred if Single Juror Finds Defendant Mentally Retarded” and “Expert Testimony to Be Heard on ‘Super’ and ‘Best’ Lawyer Claims.”

Linda Greenhouse is reporting: In Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times, she will have articles headlined “Passengers Granted Same Right as Drivers” and “Justices Back Wall St. On New Issues.”

“We must decide whether the Fourth Amendment permits compulsory DNA testing of the Plaintiffs, non-violent felony offenders subject to the Act, in the absence of individualized suspicion that they have committed additional crimes.” Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit became the latest federal appellate court to reject a constitutional challenge to the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, as amended. You can access today’s ruling at this link.

“A Series of Posts on Warshak v. United States, the E-Mail Privacy Case”: At “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Orin Kerr says that this post will be the first in a series discussing the Sixth Circuit ruling that I first noted here earlier today.

“The Right to Bear Arms: A Surprising Split Among Liberals.” That’s the title of this week’s broadcast of NPR’s “Justice Talking.” You can access the audio in both Windows Media and mp3 formats.

“High Court Says Passengers May Question Legality of Traffic Stops”: Robert Barnes will have this article Tuesday in The Washington Post.

“Women File Suit to Defend Online Reputation”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“Supreme Court Grants Banks Broad Implied Immunity From Antitrust Lawsuits”: law.com’s Tony Mauro provides this report.

A decision issued today in the appeal that I argued on October 17, 2006 before a three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania holding court at the Duane Morris LLP Moot Courtroom of the Temple University Beasley School of Law: You can access today’s ruling at this link. I represented the appellant, who today prevailed in having the entry of summary judgment against him on the issue of liability vacated. My client, himself an attorney, had handled the case pro se but then, once the appellate briefing schedule issued, got me involved to brief and argue the case on his behalf on appeal.

When should a federal appellate court change its prediction of how a state court of last resort would rule on a question of state law? Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a ruling addressing that question. Today’s ruling reverses a federal district court decision that presumably applied the Third Circuit’s previous prediction of New Jersey law, which today’s Third Circuit ruling abandons for an opposite prediction. New Jersey’s highest court has yet to address the particular question at issue.

It is interesting to consider whether it would have been appropriate, in the first instance, for the federal district court to ignore the earlier Third Circuit ruling if the federal district court were confident that the earlier Third Circuit ruling had incorrectly predicted how New Jersey’s highest court would rule on the issue presented, even though New Jersey’s highest court hadn’t yet ruled on the issue.

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Court Term Nears End, Big Cases Left“; “Appeals Court Rules for E-Mail Privacy“; and “Vt. Judge Dissolves Union in Child Spat.”

“Supreme Court affirms rights of passengers in cars stopped by police”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.

And Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers reports that “Search-and-seizure protections also apply to passengers in traffic stops, court rules.”

Divided three-judge Seventh Circuit panel vacates Indiana death sentence imposed on “an emotionally disturbed young man who had been abused and raped as a child” where “the only evidence presented by the defense concerning mental state at the time of the killing was the testimony of a psychologist who believes that mental illness is a myth”: You can access today’s ruling at this link. The vote in favor of setting aside the death sentence was 2-1. One of the judges in the majority on that issue would have also set aside the habeas petitioner’s murder conviction due to ineffective assistance of counsel, but neither of the other two judges agreed on that issue. The ruling also includes consideration of the habeas petitioner’s claim that his rights were infringed by the requirement that he wear a stun belt at trial.

“Politics weakens Justice Dept. independence”: McClatchy Newspapers provide this report.

“Roberts, Alito help define new Supreme Court; Frustrated on other fronts, Bush can claim some success on the high court”: Tom Curry, national affairs writer for MSNBC, provides this report.

“Investment Banks Shielded From Suit by Top U.S. Court”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News provides this report.

And James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Top court rules IPO suit can’t proceed.”

“The slow wheels of justice in Ohio; Even the state’s justices acknowledge the high court takes too long on decisions”: This article appeared yesterday in The Cleveland Plain Dealer. (Via Jonathan Adler of “The Volokh Conspiracy“).

“Court decides Credit Suisse case, bars antitrust”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

The U.S. Supreme Court today issued decisions in the following three argued cases:

1. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Billing, No. 05-1157. You can access the opinion here and the oral argument transcript here;

2. Brendlin v. California, No. 06-8120. You can access the opinion here and the oral argument transcript here; and

3. Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services, Inc., No. 05-85. You can access the opinion here and the oral argument transcript here.

You can access today’s Order List at this link. The Court granted review in one case.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court Embraces Rights for Car Passengers” and “Court Sides With Wall Street Banks.”

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirms in large measure a federal district court’s preliminary injunction limiting the federal government’s ability to seize email communication without first providing the email account holder with prior notice and an opportunity to be heard: Today’s ruling limits the federal government’s power under a federal statute known as the Stored Communications Act.

The Sixth Circuit, in today’s ruling, provides the following summary of its holdings: “On remand, therefore, the preliminary injunction shall allow seizures of e-mail in three situations: (1) if the government obtains a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment, based on probable cause and in compliance with the particularity requirement; (2) if the government provides notice to the account holder in seeking an SCA order, according him the same judicial review he would be allowed were he to be subpoenaed; or (3) if the government can show specific, articulable facts, demonstrating that an ISP or other entity has complete access to the e-mails in question and that it actually relies on and utilizes this access in the normal course of business, sufficient to establish that the user has waived his expectation of privacy with respect to that entity, in which case compelled disclosure may occur if that entity is afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard.”

“On basic rights, U.S. lost its way”: The St. Petersburg Times today contains an editorial that begins, “What happened to Ali al-Marri is the story of America losing its way by letting fear override our national values.”

“The High Cost of Free Speech”: Online at Democracy Project, Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld has an essay that begins, “On June 8, 2007, seven months after hearing arguments in my suit against Saudi billionaire Khaled bin Mahfouz–Ehrenfeld vs. bin Mahfouz–the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals established an important legal precedent, henceforward affecting all American writers and publishers.”

My extensive earlier coverage of the Second Circuit’s recent ruling appears at this link.

“Press Frets as More Judges Claim Libel; Newspaper smacked with damage award fights back, claims trial of Illinois justice’s lawsuit was unfair”: Tony Mauro has this article (free access) in today’s issue of Legal Times. My recent earlier coverage of the Illinois case can be accessed here and here.

“Dershowitz Foes Face Scrutiny; Denied tenure bid, cancelled speech latest fates for enemies of Harvard Law professor”: The Harvard Crimson provides this news update.

“Muddy Waters”: The New York Times today contains an editorial that begins, “The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers have finally issued guidelines about which streams and wetlands are subject to federal jurisdiction. Unfortunately, they are just as confusing as the Supreme Court decision they are supposed to carry out — guaranteeing endless litigation, while increasing the chances that valuable wetlands will be needlessly destroyed.”

“Abusing The Secrets Shield”: David Kay and Michael German have this op-ed today in The Washington Post.

“Their Own Defense: D.C.’s Clubby Attorneys Keep Corporate Work in the Flock.” This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“The Best Judges Business Can Buy”: The New York Times today contains an editorial that begins, “The problem of wealthy interests’ trying to influence court decisions by pouring money into state judicial elections continues to escalate, according to a newly released report.”

“The Supreme Court’s Bonus Babies”: David Lat has this op-ed today in The New York Times.

“Five to Four: The Supreme Court’s rightward shift.” Jeffrey Toobin has this Talk of the Town essay in the June 25, 2007 issue of The New Yorker.

“The Great American Pants Suit: A judge pins a $67 million value on a pair of trousers–his own.” Walter Olson has this op-ed (free access) today in The Wall Street Journal.

“2 farmers suing DEA over right to grow hemp; Feds argue that ‘hemp is marijuana'”: This article appears today in USA Today.

“The Al-Marri Decision: A Victory for One Man, and for a Principle, But One With Limited or Nonexistent Practical Consequence.” Jesselyn Radack has this essay online today at FindLaw.