“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.

“Editor’s Charge: His Lawyer Fell Short.” You can access Monday’s installment of Adam Liptak‘s “Sidebar” column at this link (TimesSelect temporary pass-through link). It begins, “People like to gripe about their lawyers after their cases go south. Listen, for instance, to Norman Pearlstine, who presided over the debacle that ended with Time Inc.’s disclosure of the identity of a source to a special prosecutor two summers ago.”

“U.S. attorneys fallout seeps into the courts; Defense lawyers in different cases are raising new questions about government prosecutors and potential political biases”: This article will appear Monday in The Los Angeles Times.

“Guantanamo under a steady hammering; Experts foresee more legal obstacles ahead for the detention camp, although others think the system is salvageable”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

“Nifong stripped of law license for lacrosse case misconduct; Hearing’s chairman calls the case ‘a fiasco,’ and parents of the exonerated players tell of the heartache they endured”: This article appears today in The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina, along with articles headlined “Leaders say penalty will improve lawyers’ image; It shows that DAs aren’t above law” and “Outcome turned on close calls.”

The Durham Herald-Sun today contains articles headlined “State Bar takes Nifong’s law license” and “Community largely expected Bar’s decision.”

The New York Times reports that “Prosecutor in Duke Case Disbarred by Ethics Panel.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Nifong loses law license in Duke case; The district attorney accepts a guilty verdict from a panel that says he engaged in deceit in the rape prosecution.”

The Washington Post reports that “Prosecutor in Duke Case Gives Up His Law License.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Disbarred Duke Prosecutor’s Future Dim.”

“When ‘enemy combatants’ aren’t: Executive overreach gets checked in a court ruling that labels a suspected al-Qaida operative as a civilian.” Columnist Robyn Blumner has this op-ed today in The St. Petersburg Times.

And today in The Washington Post, columnist David S. Broder has an op-ed entitled “Failure on Two Fronts.”

“Waves of change swept away bid vs. gay nuptials”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.

And The Washington Times today contains an article headlined “Gays aim to expand Massachusetts ‘marriages.’”

“Ludicrous lawsuits”: Jeff Jacoby has this op-ed today in The Boston Globe.

“In U.S. Attorney’s Offices, Help Wanted; Justice Dept. Seeking Replacements for Departing Temporary Prosecutors”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

And yesterday, The St. Petersburg Times contained an article headlined “Small field applies to be U.S. attorney; Political issues may have discouraged applicants, experts say.”

“Testimonial Two-Step: Mastering the intricate dance of congressional testimony.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“White House and Lawmakers Alike Face Risks in an Executive Privilege Fight”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

“Bush suffers court setbacks in war on terrorism”: James Vicini of Reuters provides this report.

“In Louisiana town, wearing low-rider pants may cost you; Supporters say the new ordinance aims to curb indecent behavior while opponents say it infringes on freedom of personal expression”: This article will appear Monday in The Christian Science Monitor.

Detroit Tigers 7, Philadelphia Phillies 4: My son and I were back at Citizens Bank Park this afternoon, to see if Tigers starting pitcher Justin Verlander would equal the record held by Johnny Vander Meer by tossing back-to-back no-hitters. Failing that, we would have settled for a Phillies victory. Alas, we woud see neither, as Verlander was touched for seven hits and three runs, and left the game when replaced by a pinch-hitter in the top of the seventh, trailing 3-1, but nevertheless achieved his third victory in a row as the Tigers ended up scoring five runs in the top of the seventh, putting the Tigers in the lead for good.

A strong effort from Phillies starting pitcher Adam Eaton was wasted as the Phillies ended up using a total of four pitchers in the top of the seventh. Geoff Geary, who replaced Eaton, faced only one batter, gave up a hit, and ended up as the losing pitcher. Yoel Hernandez, charged with giving up three earned runs in one-third of an inning, surrendered five hits while recording only one out. His ineffective outing put the game out of reach for the Phillies. Meanwhile, at the plate, Eaton also had two hits off of Verlander and knocked-in one run.

The only real remaining excitement for the Phillies came in the top of the eighth inning while newly-acquired relief pitcher Jose Mesa was on the mound. With Marcus Thames of the Tigers batting, it appeared that his check swing may have crossed the plate for strike three, but the home plate umpire did not think so and did not appeal to the first base umpire for a ruling. That led to the ejection of Phillies starting catcher Carlos Ruiz and the “mercy” ejection of Phillies manager Charlie Manuel, for whom the fans had nothing but boos given his unfortunate selection of relief pitchers in the top of the seventh inning. For good measure, the first base umpire also ejected Phillies third base coach Steve Smith, who had apparently been mouthing-off to the first base umpire from the dugout during the same interruption. It wouldn’t surprise me if both Ruiz and Smith receive suspensions given that they both appeared to shove the umpires with whom they were arguing.

If the New York Mets lose tonight, as they currently are, the Phillies will remain just two games out of first place in the National League East. You can access the box score of the Phillies-Tigers game at this link, while wraps are available here and here.

Available online from law.com: An article reports that “11th Circuit to Decide if Lawyer Can Sue Stock Market Over WorldCom Losses.”

In other news, “N.J. Court Sets a Tougher Test of ‘Blight’ for Using Eminent Domain.”

And an article reports that “Conflict Looms Over Executive Privilege; White House tries to rebuff attempts to subpoena officials as Democrats try to learn who authorized U.S. Attorney firings.”