In Wednesday’s issue of The New York Times: Adam Liptak will have an article headlined “Bush Rationale on Libby Stirs Legal Debate” that begins, “In commuting I. Lewis Libby Jr.’s 30-month prison sentence on Monday, President Bush drew on the same array of arguments about the federal sentencing system often made by defense lawyers — and routinely and strenuously opposed by his own Justice Department.”

And Neil A. Lewis will have an article headlined “2 Senators Accuse Judge of Misleading Committee” that begins, “Senate Democrats have complained that a federal appeals court judge may have misled them at his confirmation hearings when he said he had no role in formulating detention policy when he was an official in the Bush White House.”

“Skeptical jury awards just $2 for parents’ pain over son’s improper removal by state; But 1999 incident helped change family-rights laws”: This article appears today in The Salt Lake Tribune.

And The Deseret Morning News reports today that “Trauma suit against state yields an award of $2.”

“Pregnant and poor in Mississippi: Mississippi law limits abortion to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy; But for poor women short on time and money, that can be an impossible deadline.” Sharon Lerner has this essay online at Salon.

“The Quality of Mercy Is Strained: Bush commutes Libby’s sentence, while his lawyers come down hard on everyone else.” Harlan J. Protass has this essay online at Slate.

Meanwhile, at National Review Online, you can access an editorial entitled “Appropriate Presidential Mercy.” And Byron York has an essay entitled “Why Bush Saved Libby: Sure it’s controversial; But it’s what presidents do.”

And online at Salon, Sidney Blumenthal has an essay entitled “Bush and Cheney walk, too: Even as the president confesses that Scooter Libby engaged in a cover-up — after all, that was the verdict — he completes the ultimate obstruction of justice in the Plame affair.”

The Associated Press is reporting: An article headlined “Court: Mental Anguish Awards Are Taxable” reports on a ruling on panel rehearing that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today. My earlier coverage of that ruling appears here.

And in other news, “Legal Confusion Follows Libby Decision“; “ACLU Sues City Over Jesus Painting“; and “Padilla Expert Admonished for Interview.”

“Race in Schools Court Ruling”: This audio segment (available in both RealPlayer and Windows Media Player formats) appeared on yesterday’s broadcast of the public radio program “On Point.”

And today’s broadcast of the public radio program “Here & Now” contained an audio segment entitled “School Assignments and Income” (RealPlayer required).

Available online from National Public Radio: Today’s broadcast of “Day to Day” contained an audio segment entitled “Bush’s Action on Libby: Legal Implications” featuring Dahlia Lithwick.

And today’s broadcast of “Morning Edition” contained audio segments entitled “President Bush Commutes Libby’s Sentence” and “Wilson Lambastes White House on Libby Case.”

RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Bush spares Libby from prison; Cheney’s former aide won’t have to serve his 30-month sentence, but he’s not pardoned in the CIA leak case”: David G. Savage and Richard B. Schmitt have this article today in The Los Angeles Times. The newspaper also contains a news analysis headlined “Bush’s move cheers conservative base; The president’s decision to spare Libby prison time stirs outrage but, perhaps more crucially, gratifies conservatives.”

Today in The New York Times, Scott Shane and Neil A. Lewis report that “Bush Commutes Libby Sentence, Saying 30 Months ‘Is Excessive.’” Adam Liptak reports that “Commutation Doesn’t Equal a Full Pardon.” And columnist David Brooks has an op-ed entitled “Ending the Farce” (TimesSelect temporary pass-through link).

The Washington Post contains articles headlined “Bush Commutes Libby’s Prison Sentence“; “A Decision Made Largely Alone“; and “Scooter Libby’s Pals, Trusting In Providence.” In addition, the newspaper contains an editorial entitled “Too Much Mercy: Scooter Libby’s prison sentence was excessive, but so is President Bush’s commutation.”

The Boston Globe reports that “Bush spares Libby from prison sentence; GOP allies applaud; Democrats outraged.”

The San Francisco Chronicle contains an article headlined “What the decision on Libby means for White House: Bush commutes sentence, but lets fine stand.” And an editorial is entitled “Trumping the rule of law.”

The Washington Times reports that “Bush commutes Libby’s prison sentence.”

USA Today contains articles headlined “Dems lash out on Libby decision; Bush voids jail term; political rift heats up” and “Dems, Republicans at odds over Libby’s commutation; ‘Even Paris Hilton had to go to jail,’ Illinois senator says.”

In The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein reports that “Bush Calls a Halt to Jailing of Libby; Commutes Sentence After Rebuff by Appeals Court.” In addition, the newspaper contains an editorial entitled “Bush’s Clemency.”

Finally, The Wall Street Journal contains an editorial entitled “Bush and Libby: The commutation is a profile in non-courage” (free access).

“Cert. Petition Filed in Indiana Voter ID Case”: Law Professor Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law” blog. Rick’s post also provides a link to the cert. petition.

Divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel holds that defendants which continue to process credit card payments to websites that infringe Perfect 10’s intellectual property rights after being notified of that infringement are not secondarily liable under federal copyright and trademark law: Another day, another nude photo-copyright and trademark ruling from the Ninth Circuit. You can access today’s ruling at this link. Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski has issued a spirited dissent from the ruling.

“Raiders denied retrial in NFL case; Team lawyer calls ruling ‘incomprehensible'”: The Oakland Tribune today contains an article that begins, “It appears the Raiders’ recent struggles on the field have followed the team into the court room. The California Supreme Court ruled Monday that a 2001 verdict against the team in its lawsuit with the National Football League should stand, ending a case that began in 1999. The ruling also ends, for the first time in at least 20 years, any litigation the team has in the court system.”

And today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Raiders denied new trial in suit accusing NFL of forcing them from L.A.; Unanimous ruling by state’s high court ends long dispute.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Supreme Court of California ruling appears at this link.

“‘Balancing’ schools and race”: This editorial appears today in The Washington Times.

“White House Won’t Rule Out Libby Pardon”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Navy still probing 2006 Guantanamo deaths”: Carol Rosenberg has this article today in The Miami Herald.

On panel rehearing, three-judge D.C. Circuit panel holds that the federal government has the power to tax “compensatory damages for emotional distress and loss of reputation”: According to today’s unanimous ruling, written by Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, the court holds that “Murphy’s award, even if it is not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment, is within the reach of the congressional power to tax under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.”

Today’s ruling may strike many as unremarkable, and indeed it would be if this same three-judge panel, in August 2006, had not issued a decision in this very case holding that “insofar as §104(a)(2) permits the taxation of compensation for a personal injury, which compensation is unrelated to lost wages or earnings, that provision is unconstitutional.” My initial coverage of that ruling appeared at this link.

Additional coverage of the panel’s decision from August 2006, reaching a result opposite from the result reached on panel rehearing today, can be accessed here, here, here, here, and here.

“The Roberts Court and the Role of Precedent”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“A Disappointing Term: President Bush’s nominees give the Supreme Court an activist nudge to the right.” This editorial appears today in The Washington Post.

“In a Shift, Judge Demurs on Dismissing KPMG Case”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “The federal judge overseeing a faltering criminal tax shelter case indicated yesterday that he might not dismiss charges after all against a dozen indicted defendants from the accounting firm KPMG.”

“Federal Judge Files Complaint Against Prosecutor in Boston”: In The New York Times today, Adam Liptak has an article that begins, “Citing ‘extraordinary misconduct by the Department of Justice,’ the chief judge of the Federal District Court in Boston has filed an unusual disciplinary complaint against a federal prosecutor there, according to two letters from the judge dated Friday and placed in the court file yesterday.”

The Boston Globe reports today that “Top judge wants US prosecutor disciplined; Says evidence was withheld at trial.”

And The Boston Herald contains an editorial entitled “The ‘secret’ reprimand.”

“Juggling Figures, and Justice, in a Doctor’s Trial”: Today in The New York Times, John Tierney has an essay that begins, “On April 14, 2005, the day Dr. William E. Hurwitz was sentenced to 25 years in prison, Karen Tandy called a news conference to celebrate the sentence and reassure other doctors. Ms. Tandy, head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, held up a plastic bag containing 1,600 opioid pills.”

“Appeals Panel Splits Three Ways on Church-State Suit”: Today in The New York Sun, Joseph Goldstein has an article that begins, “The city’s policy of barring churches from holding Sunday services in public schools could provide the U.S. Supreme Court with its next big ‘establishment clause’ case, given the fractured judgment rendered by a federal appellate court in Manhattan yesterday.”

“Legislation Could Be Path to Closing Guantanamo”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “Seeking a legal path to shutting down the Guantanamo detention facility, senior advisers to President Bush are exploring whether the White House and Congress can agree to legislation that would permit the long-term detention of foreign terrorism suspects on American soil, Pentagon and administration officials say.”

“Clues to the New Dynamic on the Supreme Court”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.

“Hard right: Lawyers on local panel leery of where conservative majority on the Supreme Court may be taking us.” This article appeared yesterday in The Chicago Sun-Times.

“Secret trials for terrorists, says US judge”: Last Friday’s issue of The Australian contained an article that begins, “A top ranking US judge has stunned a conference of Australian judges and barristers in Chicago by advocating secret trials for terrorists, more surveillance of Muslim populations across North America and an end to counter-terrorism efforts being ‘hog-tied’ by the US constitution. Judge Richard Posner, a supposedly liberal-leaning jurist regarded by many as a future US Supreme Court candidate, said traditional concepts of criminal justice were inadequate to deal with the terrorist threat and the US had ‘over-invested’ in them.” A related editorial published that day was headlined “Junket hit by terror: Australia’s legal minds get a dose of US reality” (second item).

And yesterday, The Chicago Sun-Times published an article headlined “Judge says views distorted: Aussie paper said he supports secret trials.”

“The Resolution of the Famous Multimillion-Dollar ‘Pant Suit,’ Filed by a Judge: Why the Drycleaner Defendants Defeated the Plaintiff.” Anthony J. Sebok has this essay online today at FindLaw.