“High Court Backs Banks In Antitrust Suit on IPOs”: Tomoeh Murakami Tse and Charles Lane have this article today in The Washington Post.

The Los Angeles Times reports today that “High court blocks IPO antitrust suit; Justices say claims that brokerages conspired to inflate stock prices have to be brought under securities statutes.”

USA Today contains an article headlined “High court: IPO investors can’t sue Wall Street firms; SEC oversight protects investment banks.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Antitrust Ruling Welcomed on Wall Street.”

“Bush Aides’ Misuse of E-Mail Detailed by House Committee”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

The Washington Times reports today that “Report slams deletion of White House e-mail.”

And McClatchy Newspapers report that “Missing White House e-mails may have violated law, panel says.”

“Supreme Court affirms passenger rights in police stops; When a vehicle is ‘seized,’ justices conclude, so are its occupants; The 9-0 decision overturns a California high court decision”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

Today in USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Passengers can challenge police stops, justices rule; Constitution covers more than just driver.”

And in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Cops can’t seize passenger after an illegal stop.”

“Law is no straitjacket: Official opposition to freeing Genarlow Wilson is as much about stubbornness as legal principle.” This editorial appears today in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

“Reckless slide repudiated”: Today in The Washington Times, Bruce Fein has an op-ed that begins, “In Ali Al-Marri v. Commander S.L. Wright (June 11, 2007), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rebuked President Bush’s frightening claim that the Constitution crowned him with power to pluck every American citizen from his home for indefinite detention without trial on suspicion of preparing for acts of international terrorism.”

“Administration Struggles With Interrogation Specifics”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “Eight months after President Bush signed a bill authorizing the CIA to resume using ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ on terrorism suspects, the administration has been unable to agree on what constitutes ‘humiliating and degrading treatment’ of detainees.”

The New York Times today contains an article headlined “Question Time for Nominee Linked to Interrogations.”

Reuters reports that “Democrats grill Bush CIA nominee about detainees.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Dems Wary of Bush CIA Counsel Choice.”

“How to handle Guantanamo Bay puzzles candidates; Detention center emerges as key campaign issue as security concerns and legal challenges mount”: This article appears today in USA Today.

“Libby Seeks Delay of Prison Term”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Former White House aide I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, who faces prison soon in the CIA leak case, asked a federal appeals court Tuesday to step in and delay the sentence.”

“Government urges swift rejection in detainee cases”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Judge Dissolves Civil Union in Custody Fight”: Today in The New York Times, Adam Liptak has an article that begins, “A family court judge in Vermont on Friday dissolved a civil union between two women whose fight over their daughter had attracted national attention and for a time put a judge in Virginia at odds with one in Vermont over whether a child can have two mothers.”

And The Rutland (Vt.) Herald today contains an article headlined “Sole custody in civil union case” that begins, “A Rutland judge has awarded to a Virginia woman custody of a child at the center of a high-profile legal battle stemming from a Vermont civil union breakup, and granted visitation to the woman’s former partner living in Fair Haven.”

“Life terms sought for James Kopp in slaying of Dr. Slepian; Federal sentencing scheduled for Tuesday on conviction for obstructing access to abortions”: This article appeared yesterday in The Buffalo News.

And The Associated Press reports that “Abortion Foe Could Face 2 Life Terms.”

“New citizen-detainee case to Court”: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post that begins, “Attorneys for a U.S. citizen facing execution by Iraq’s government has now taken his case to the Supreme Court in an appeal that asks the Justices to sort out the continuing meaning of — and perhaps to overrule — a brief but historic post-World War II decision.”

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejects legal challenge to the appointments of the first three Justices to serve on the newly-formed Supreme Court of the U.S. Virgin Islands: You can access today’s Third Circuit ruling at this link.

“County loses antitrust case”: The Cincinnati Enquirer provides a news update that begins, “An appeals court today rejected Hamilton County’s attempt to revive an antitrust lawsuit against the Bengals and the National Football League. The judges of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that county officials should have known the NFL was a monopoly during negotiations to build the $450 million Paul Brown Stadium.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Court Upholds Rejection of Bengals Suit.”

Harvard Law Professor Arthur R. Miller argued the case on behalf of the losing side. And Sixth Circut Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton wrote the opinion on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel. The opinion contains a colorful recounting of history of the Cincinnati Bengals and may contain the first-ever reference to the “Ickey Shuffle” (see a related YouTube clip from the movie “Baseketball” at this link) in the Federal Reporter.

After having been reversed twice by the U.S. Supreme Court for setting aside this particular Tennessee inmate’s death sentence, the Sixth Circuit narrowly avoids going for the hat-trick: You can access today’s ruling in Cone v. Bell, by a divided three-judge panel, at this link. The Supreme Court’s earlier reversals can be accessed here and here.

“What is the real face of Regent’s law school?” Yesterday’s edition of The Virginian-Pilot contained an article that begins, “For some, Monica Goodling has become the face of Regent University’s law school. And therein lies the challenge for its administrators and students.”

“What would Jack Bauer do? Canadian jurist prompts international justice panel to debate TV drama 24’s use of torture.” This past Saturday’s issue of The Toronto Globe and Mail contained an article that begins, “Justice Antonin Scalia is one of the most powerful judges on the planet. The job of the veteran U.S. Supreme Court judge is to ensure that the superpower lives up to its Constitution. But in his free time, he is a fan of 24, the popular TV drama where the maverick federal agent Jack Bauer routinely tortures terrorists to save American lives. This much was made clear at a legal conference in Ottawa this week.”

“One juror can spare a retarded murderer; Top Jersey court aids accused child killer”: This article appears today in The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger.

The New York Times reports today that “New Jersey Court Says Showing of Mental Retardation Can Block Execution.”

And The Associated Press provides a report headlined “NJ Court: One Juror Can Block Execution.”

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

“Court finds e-mail was private”: The Cincinnati Enquirer today contains an article that begins, “More than two years after it seized the personal e-mail of the owner of Berkeley Nutraceuticals, the government was set straight in its methods again, this time in an opinion rendered Monday by the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The unanimous opinion of a three-judge panel of the court upheld U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott’s finding last July that prosecutors violated the Constitution when they persuaded a federal magistrate to give them access to Steve Warshak’s e-mail accounts at Nuvox Communications and Yahoo!”

And today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “Court Rules Stored E-Mails More Private” (RealPlayer required).

Electronic Frontier Foundation provides access to the appellate briefs and the district court’s ruling via this link.

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

“The Principle of Judicial Sincerity”: Law Professor Micah Schwartzman has posted this interesting article online at bepress. The article’s abstract begins, “The idea that judges have a duty to be sincere or candid in their legal opinions has been subject to systematic criticism in recent years. Critics have argued that a strong presumption in favor of candor threatens judicial legitimacy, deters positive strategic action on multi-member courts, reduces the clarity and coherence of doctrine, erodes collegiality, and promotes the proliferation of fractured opinions.” (Via “Legal Theory Blog“).

“Judge Fines Firms For Withholding Policy Information”: Today in The New York Sun, Joseph Goldstein has an article that begins, “A federal judge is fining two law firms for withholding information about an insurance policy that covered the World Trade Center at the time of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The sanction, of $1.25 million, is against the firms Wiley Rein LLP and Coughlin Duffy LLP, as well as their client, the Zurich American Insurance Company.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York at this link.

“US agencies disobey 6 laws that president challenged; Officials regarded some as advisory”: Today in The Boston Globe, Charlie Savage has an article that begins, “Federal officials have disobeyed at least six new laws that President Bush challenged in his signing statements, a government study disclosed yesterday. The report provides the first evidence that the government may have acted on claims by Bush that he can set aside laws under his executive powers.”

The Washington Post reports today that “‘Signing Statements’ Study Finds Administration Has Ignored Laws.”

And The Associated Press reports that “GAO Examines Signing Statement Cases.”

“A Judicial Overreaction To Bush Abuses?” In this week’s issue of National Journal, Stuart Taylor Jr. has an essay that begins, “A federal Appeals Court’s unanimous rejection on June 11 of President Bush’s effort to deny judicial review and due process to a legal alien who has been militarily incarcerated for four years — because Bush says he is a Qaeda agent — was a ringing and welcome defense of our constitutional freedoms.”

“Judges Behaving Badly: Their Ill-Considered Suits Against a Dry Cleaner, and Against the Yale Club.” Anthony J. Sebok has this essay online at FindLaw.

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.”