Who will protect the First Amendment right of bail bondsmen to solicit potential customers? The Fifth Circuit, that’s who, although not to exactly the same degree as did a federal district judge whose decision the Fifth Circuit reviews in an opinion issued today. Moreover, today’s ruling apparently applies to Texas-based bail bondspeople of whatever gender.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton grants permission for law professors to file amicus brief in support of “Scooter” Libby’s motion for bail pending appeal: Don’t miss what appears to be a disparaging footnote found in today’s order.

“Hanford zoning decision reversed; State’s top court sides with the city in a ruling some say could hurt big-box retailers”: The Fresno Bee today contains an article that begins, “The state’s highest court sided with the city of Hanford on Thursday in a land-use case that some hail as a victory for local government — but others say could be used against big-box retailers.”

Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Court backs local control over big-box sites; Cities, counties can decide type of stores they prefer.”

And Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that “S.C. Approves Ordinance Designed to Protect Downtown Businesses; Court Unanimously Rejects Merchants’ Argument That Law Unconstitutionally Stifled Competition.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of California at this link.

“Gay Lawyers Come Out as Clients Demand More Diversity”: Bloomberg News provides this report.

“Screaming Paris Hilton Sent Back to Jail”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Law and Orders: How should the president’s lawyers advise a reluctant White House?” Law Professor Dawn Johnsen has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“In this appeal we consider whether a statutory scheme compelling California pistachio growers to fund generic advertising through the California Pistachio Commission violates the First Amendment.” So begins a decision that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling vacates a preliminary injunction forbidding the California Pistachio Commission from collecting and using the challenged assessments until the litigation is resolved on the merits.

“Death leads to dismissal of key Supreme Court case”: The St. Louis Post-Dispatch yesterday contained an article (via “Sentencing Law and Policy“) that begins, “Investigators are still sorting out why Mario Claiborne was following a stolen pickup last week and just how the pursuit led to gunfire and Claiborne’s death. But the killing has created other legal twists, as it forced the dismissal of Claiborne’s closely watched case before the U.S. Supreme Court, which was expected to rule within the next few weeks. Justices were to clarify how much discretion federal judges have when applying sentencing guidelines.”

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Pentagon to Appeal Guantanamo Decisions“; “Former Atlanta Mayor Appeals Sentence“; and “White House Expands Its Legal Team.”

“Professors Back Libby on Appeal; Group Includes Dershowitz, Bork”: Josh Gerstein of The New York Sun provides a news update that begins, “A dozen legal scholars, including a noted civil libertarian, Alan Dershowitz, are coming to the aid of a convicted White House aide facing a 2 1/2-year prison sentence. The scholars submitted an amicus brief Thursday to Judge Reggie Walton arguing that that there are serious constitutional questions about the legal authority of the special prosecutor who pursued Libby on obstruction of justice, perjury and false statement charges, Patrick Fitzgerald.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Leak Prosecutor’s Authority Questioned.”

You can access the law professors’ amicus brief at this link.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has issued its eagerly awaited ruling in Ehrenfeld v. Bin Mahfouz: You can access today’s ruling at this link. [Update: The Second Circuit originally posted the opinion at that link, but then took the decision off-line. I’m told that the ruling should be back online soon. Second update at 11:58 a.m.: The opinion is once again available from the Second Circuit’s web site. I’ve posted a back-up copy of today’s ruling at this link.]

Today’s ruling certifies a jurisdictional question to New York State’s highest court for resolution, thereby vacating the trial court’s dismissal of one of the plaintiff’s two claims. The dismissal of the other claim is affirmed. The trial court’s ruling that is the subject of today’s Second Circuit decision can be accessed here.

The New York Sun on November 9, 2006 published Joseph Goldstein’s coverage of the Second Circuit’s oral argument in an article headlined “A British Court’s Libel Judgment Is Reviewed by American Judges; Saudi Sued Ehrenfeld Over Allegations.”

Back in April 2005, The New York Times reported on the author’s initiation of litigation in the United States in an article headlined “Seeking U.S. Turf for a Free-Speech Fight.”

In August 2005, Jeffrey Toobin had this Talk of the Town essay in The New Yorker about the dispute.

On November 7, 2006, The Boston Globe published an op-ed by Samuel A. Abady and Harvey Silverglate entitled “‘Libel tourism’ and the war on terror.” That op-ed begins, “An important question will be argued tomorrow before the federal Court of Appeals in Manhattan: should American journalists who write about controversial issues be subjected to legal intimidation from abroad? More precisely, will American courts halt the growing practice of ‘libel tourism’ whereby wealthy foreigners sue American writers and publishers in England, despite little chance of enforcing the judgment in this country?”

On May 19, 2005, The Times of London published an article headlined “Libel and money – why British courts are choice of the world; The £30,000 damages won by a Saudi billionaire over 23 copies of an American book but imported to Britain is being contested by the author.” The article begins, “US publishers might have to stop contentious books being sold on the internet in case they reach the ‘claimant-friendly’ English courts. The author Rachel Ehrenfeld is countersuing Khalid bin Mahfouz in New York, claiming that her rights to free speech under the American Constitution have been breached. Sheikh bin Mahfouz has sued four times in London for statements concerning his alleged role in terrorism financing. He has never lost.”

Finally for now, FrontPageMagazine.com has published an essay by American plaintiff-British defendant Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld entitled “The Saudi Buck Stops Here.” And Alyssa A. Lappen had a related essay entitled “Libel Wars.” A web site operated on behalf of bin Mahfouz offers these views on the litigation.

“Cox Sides With Democrats on Court Case, People Say”: Bloomberg News provides a report that begins, “U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox broke ranks with the agency’s Republican members to back investors in a Supreme Court case, three people familiar with the matter said.”

“Tribes Invoke Gods to Block Wastewater Snowmaking”: This article (free access) appears today in The Wall Street Journal.

My earlier coverage of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling from March 2007 can be accessed here and here.

“GOP eyes ‘shutdown’ of Senate over judges”: The Washington Times today contains an article that begins, “Republican leaders yesterday threatened a ‘total shutdown’ of Senate business if Democrats keep holding up President Bush’s appointments to the federal bench.”

Lyle Denniston is reporting: At “SCOTUSblog,” he has posts titled “Broad new challenge to military panels” and “South Carolina sues in Supreme Court over water.”

Available at Salon.com: Mark Benjamin has an essay entitled “The CIA’s favorite form of torture: If the Bush administration forces the CIA to drop ‘tough’ interrogation techniques like waterboarding, the agency will probably fall back on a brutal method that leaves no physical marks.”

And Jennifer Daskal has an essay entitled “The end of Bush’s kangaroo courts? The dismissal of two cases in Guantanamo Bay dealt a rightful blow to the administration’s quasi-justice system for alleged terrorists.”

“Segregating the Leaders from the Followers: Watch the GOP reactions to the Supreme Court school cases.” Edward Blum has this essay today at National Review Online.

“AP Motion Denied in Miami Terror Trial”: The AP provides a report that begins, “The judge in the federal trial of alleged al-Qaida operative Jose Padilla refused Thursday to require that tapes of wiretapped phone calls and other audio evidence be released to journalists on the same day they are heard in court.”

“Carolinas in Legal Fight Over River”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “South Carolina’s attorney general asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to stop North Carolina from draining millions of gallons from a river that provides drinking water and electricity to both states.”

“The F Bomb: A local lawyer teams up with a California porn king to fight for your right to trademark dirty words.” This article appears in the current issue of Orlando Weekly (via “Meeting the Sin Laws“).

And somewhat relatedly, today in The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, columnist Linda P. Campbell has an op-ed entitled “The F-word follies.”

“Court Decision Restricts Gun Sentences”: Joseph Goldstein has this article today in The New York Sun.

And law.com reports that “2nd Circuit Rejects Gun Sentence Outside Guidelines Range.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Second Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Judge to issue ruling Monday in 2003 consensual sex case”: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution today contains an article that begins, “Genarlow Wilson’s attorney appealed to a judge Wednesday to free the man from prison and throw out his conviction for receiving consensual oral sex from a 15-year-old girl when he was 17.”

“Free Judges’ Pay”: New York State Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye has this op-ed today in The New York Times.

“Judicial Speech Code: Opposing a nominee for words he never said.” The Wall Street Journal contains this editorial (free access) today.

The San Francisco Chronicle today contains an editorial entitled “Mississippi yearning.”

And Gannett News Service provides a news update headlined “Senate committee delays Southwick vote.”

“Defending Justice Thomas”: This editorial appears today in The New York Sun.

On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “Cheney Blocks DOJ Official’s Promotion: Document” and “Trial Lawyer Lerach May Step Down” (RealPlayer required).

This federal appellate judge may now be recused from deciding the case, but thankfully we don’t have to remain in suspense over how she intended to rule before the basis for recusal became known to her: Call me an old-fashioned fussbudget, if you must, but I long for the days when recused judges didn’t disclose how they would have voted on an appeal if they hadn’t been recused.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit today issued a decision in which a unanimous two-judge quorum joined. As for what happened to the third judge on the panel, footnote * explains, “The Honorable Maryanne Trump Barry participated in the oral argument and panel conference and joined in the decision on this case, but discovered facts causing her to recuse from this matter prior to filing of the Opinion. The remaining judges are unanimous in this decision, and this Opinion and Judgment are therefore being filed by a quorum of the panel.”

McClatchy Newspapers are reporting: Available online are articles headlined “E-mail questions if conservative group was party to plan to fire U.S. attorneys” and “Complaints abound over enforcement of voter registration law.”

“N.Y. Court Sides With DMV on Immigrants”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “New York has the right to deny driver’s licenses to people who can’t prove they are in the country legally, the state’s highest court ruled Thursday.”

You can access today’s ruling of the New York State Court of Appeals at this link.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has launched a redesigned web site: You can access it by clicking here.

Back online: Overnight, this blog’s web host installed some new servers. As an unexpected consequence, access to “How Appealing” was disrupted. Please accept my apologies, and all should be back to normal now.

“Scooter Libby’s Sentence: While It Was Justifiable, a More Lenient Sentence Could Also Have Been Appropriate Under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.” Edward Lazarus has this essay online today at FindLaw.

“Cases Thrown Out, Congress Considers Tribunals”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“Analysis: Ruling Drives Indecency Debate.” The Associated Press provides this report.

“4 Justices Often Side With the Condemned”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press provides this report.