Available online from law.com: An article reports that “Judge Loses One for the Team; By leaving too much to the imagination, a Los Angeles judge blew the Oakland Raiders’ chance at a new trial against the NFL.” My earlier coverage of today’s Supreme Court of California ruling appears at this link.

And in other news, “2nd Circuit Re-Examines Standard for Probate Exception.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “Court Denies Request to Delay Libby Sentence” (featuring Nina Totenberg); “Libby Won’t Go to Prison; Fine, Probation Remain” (also featuring Nina Totenberg); “President’s Move on Libby Risks Fallout“; and “Plame’s Husband Reacts to Libby Commutation.”

RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Seattle Schools Take Stock After Justices Issue Ruling”: This article appeared Sunday in The New York Times.

“President Bush has a friend in the Supreme Court”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers provides this report.

“Bush spares Libby from jail; President commutes the prison sentence of former Cheney aide, who will still have to pay a $250,000 fine”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.

The New York Times provides a news update headlined “Bush Commutes Libby’s Prison Sentence.” And Tuesday’s newspaper will contain an editorial entitled “Soft on Crime.”

The Washington Post provides a news update headlined “President Bush Commutes Libby’s Sentence.”

McClatchy Newspapers report that “Bush voids prison sentence for former White House aide Libby.”

Reuters reports that “Bush spares Libby from prison.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “Bush Commutes Libby’s Prison Term in CIA Leak Case.”

“A Conference Discussing the Contributions of Judge Robert H. Bork”: A plethora of video clips from last week’s Federalist Society conference can be accessed via this link.

“Bush Commutes Libby Prison Sentence”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “President Bush commuted the sentence of former aide I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby Monday, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case. Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, according to a senior White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced.” The AP has also issued an item headlined “Bush Statement on Libby Order.”

“Hamdan case returns to Supreme Court”: Lyle Denniston has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

And a separate post at “SCOTUSblog” today is titled “Measuring ‘Divisiveness’ in OT06.”

“Another Raiders loss — this time before state’s high court”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle provides a news update that begins, “The state Supreme Court denied a new trial to the Oakland Raiders today in the team’s $1.2 billion lawsuit accusing the National Football league of forcing it out of Los Angeles in 1995 by sabotaging plans for a new stadium. The court ruled unanimously that the Raiders had failed to prove misconduct by members of a Los Angeles jury that returned a 9-3 verdict in favor of the NFL in 2001.”

And The Associated Press reports that “California high court ends Raiders lawsuit against NFL.”

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

“This petition presents an issue of first impression: whether a district court has the authority to circumvent the ten-day deadline for obtaining interlocutory review of an order denying class certification by vacating and reentering that order, after the aggrieved parties filed and this Court dismissed an untimely petition for an interlocutory appeal.” Circuit Judge William H. Pryor, Jr. issued this decision today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

“High Court Ends Term with Landmark Decisions”: This lengthy audio segment (RealPlayer required) — featuring Nina Totenberg, Michael Dorf, and Theodore Olson — appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Talk of the Nation.”

“The Battle Over Brown: How conservatives appropriated Brown v. Board of Education.” Law Professor Risa Goluboff has this jurisprudence essay online today at Slate.

Lopez, Morrison, Raich and criminal RICO: A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit today issued a lengthy decision that begins:

The pivotal issue in this case concerns the application of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1962, to a street gang engaged in violent, but noneconomic, criminal activity. That issue possesses constitutional implications weighty enough to have led one of our sister circuits to fashion a special, more rigorous, version of RICO’s statutory “affecting commerce” requirement for use in connection with defendants involved with enterprises that are engaged exclusively in noneconomic criminal activity. See Waucaush v. United States, 380 F.3d 251, 256 (6th Cir. 2004). Although we are reluctant to create a circuit split, we conclude, after grappling with this difficult question, that the normal requirements of the RICO statute apply to defendants involved with enterprises that are engaged only in noneconomic criminal activity.

Senior Circuit Judge Bruce M. Selya wrote the opinion of the court.

“Court Won’t Delay Prison for Libby”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A federal appeals court refused on Monday to step in and delay former White House aide I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby’s prison sentence in the CIA leak case. The unanimous decision is a dramatic setback for Libby’s legal case and puts pressure on President Bush, who has been sidestepping calls by Libby’s allies to pardon the former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney.”

Update: Today’s D.C. Circuit order can be accessed at this link.

“Our disparate views of this case leave us without a rationale to which a majority of the court agrees. While two judges who disagree on the merits believe the dispute is ripe for adjudication, the court cannot decide the merits of the case without the vote of the third judge, who disagrees as to ripeness.” A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has today issued its ruling in Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Education of the City of New York. The decision consists of a per curiam opinion, followed by two concurring opinions and one dissenting opinion. Today’s ruling vacates a permanent injunction against New York City’s rule governing the use of school facilities by outside groups for “social, civic, [or] recreational meetings, . . . and other uses pertaining to the welfare of the community.”

Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi‘s concurring opinion begins, “Is worship merely the religious analogue of ceremonies, rituals, and instruction, or is worship a unique category of protected expression? I believe the answer to that question determines the result in this case brought under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”

Senior Circuit Judge Pierre N. Leval‘s concurring opinion explains today’s outcome as follows:

“In ruling on the City defendants’ appeal from the judgment, our court divides three ways. Judge Walker would affirm, finding that the district court was correct in enjoining enforcement of Proposed SOP § 5.11. Judge Calabresi would vacate the judgment, finding it to be in error. I would also vacate the judgment but for a different reason, expressing no opinion whether the judgment was based on a correct or incorrect perception of the substantive standards of the First Amendment. In my view, the judgment should be vacated because there was no ripe dispute between the parties involving the constitutionality of Proposed SOP § 5.11 which the court could appropriately adjudicate.”

And Senior Circuit Judge John M. Walker, Jr.‘s dissenting opinion concludes: “[T]here is no doubt that this particular dispute — no stranger to the Supreme Court and now focused on worship -– would benefit from a more conclusive resolution by that Court.”

You can access today’s complete 99-page Second Circuit ruling at this link. My earlier coverage of this case appears here and here.

“Court Rejects File on Pakistani Judge”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “President Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s attempt to remove Pakistan’s chief justice received a setback Monday when a Supreme Court judge rejected government evidence and ordered a sweep of courts and judges’ homes for spying devices.”

“Bearing arms (again)”: In today’s issue of The National Law Journal, Joseph D. Becker has an essay that begins, “The pistols had hardly cooled after the murder of 32 innocents at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in April when the old debate broke out: Does the Second Amendment prohibit government interference with the right of individuals to keep weapons for hunting and self-defense?”

“Faux Judicial Restraint in Full View”: Law Professor Richard L. Hasen of the “Election Law” blog has this essay (free access) online at The Recorder.

“80% success rate at Supreme Court; Indiana lawyer tackles campaign-finance, election laws, winning 4 out of 5 challenges”: This article appears today in The Indianapolis Star.

At 1 p.m. eastern time, the Supreme Court of California is scheduled to announce its decision in Oakland Raiders v. National Football League: The case presents the question “If the trial court fails to specify its reasons for granting a new trial, is the trial court’s order granting a new trial reviewed on appeal under the abuse of discretion standard or is the order subject to independent review?”

“The Roberts Court”: This editorial appears today at National Review Online.

“Barring the Door: Court Under Roberts Limits Judicial Power; Conservative Shift Sets Hurdles for Litigants; Businesses Get a Break.” Jess Bravin has this front page article today in The Wall Street Journal.

“Multiple Choice: Anthony Kennedy punts on the question of school diversity.” Benjamin Wittes has this essay online today at The New Republic.

“The Supreme Court’s Split Over Public School Integration: Who Really Betrayed Brown’s Legacy?” Michael C. Dorf has this essay online today at FindLaw.