“Membership of New Guantanamo Review Panel May Be Challenged”: Jess Bravin had this article (pass-through link) yesterday in The Wall Street Journal.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Government defends war crimes case; Court rules issued.”

“Charges Near in Pa. Collar-Bomb Case”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A woman might be charged in the nearly four-year-old case of a pizza deliveryman who, after he robbed a bank, was killed by a bomb locked around his neck, her lawyer said Tuesday.”

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette provides a news update headlined “Charges may be announced in bomber case.”

And The Erie Times-News provides an update headlined “Diehl-Armstrong, Barnes to face charges in Wells case; Feds to make ‘significant announcement’ on Wednesday.”

“House votes to halt automatic raises for Pa. judges”: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette provides this news update.

“[T]he federal sentencing guidelines treat shoplifting hundreds of times from different outlets of one store as less serious than shoplifting once from a dozen different stores”: The “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog has this post noting a decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued today.

“Under legal attack in Pa., Nader smells political payback”: McClatchy Newspapers provide this report.

Should the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit grant rehearing en banc to repudiate earlier three-judge panel decisions holding that a plaintiff must show reliance to maintain a civil RICO claim based on mail or wire fraud? A three-judge Sixth Circuit panel today issued this decision, in which each of the three judges wrote an opinion.

“When in Doubt, Look to Roberts for Outcome of Supreme Court Cases”: law.com’s Tony Mauro has an article reporting that “in 23 of the 25 5-4 decisions, Roberts asked more questions of the side he voted against than the side he favored.”

Adult bookstore’s challenge to zoning ordinance of Dickinson County, Kansas to result in a trial over disputed secondary effects of adult businesses on surrounding communities: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued this interesting ruling today.

“Is There A Middle Ground On Race?” Stuart Taylor Jr. has this essay in this week’s issue of National Journal.

“Ethics Charges Filed Against Mass. Judge”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A state commission filed ethics charges Tuesday against a judge who won a $2 million libel award from the Boston Herald, accusing him of misconduct for writing threatening and intimidating letters to the newspaper’s publisher.”

The charges and the judge’s response thereto can be accessed at this link.

Do false statements made to a probation officer preparing a criminal defendant’s presentence report constitute “false statements submitted to a judge by a party to a judicial proceeding” for purposes of an exception to criminal liability under 18 U.S.C. sec. 1001? A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this very interesting decision today.

Circuit Judge Susan P. Graber‘s majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson joined, concludes:

Defendant’s false statement to a probation officer was submitted, as required by law, to the district court in the presentence report, in connection with a judicial proceeding to which he was a party. The statement falls within the exemption from criminal liability codified in 18 U.S.C. §1001(b). We therefore reverse the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment and remand with instructions to vacate Defendant’s conviction and sentence.

Circuit Judge Pamela Ann Rymer issued a dissenting opinion in which she reasons, “Yet if the defendant submits to an interview, and makes a statement, he makes the statement to a probation officer; if he lies, he lies to the probation officer, not ‘to the judge.'”

“In 1996, David H. Dixon lost his job as a teacher at Cumberland High School in Harlan County, Kentucky after the revelation that he had taken topless photographs of S.C., one of his female students.” So begins a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued today.

Dunkin Donuts may regret going whole hog on this particular franchisee: Might it constitute racial discrimination to require a Palestinian Arab of the Muslim faith to sell pork products at his Dunkin Donuts franchise? A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit answers “yes” in a ruling issued today.

Can a person’s nephew functionally be that person’s son? Who says immigration rulings never give rise to interesting questions? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued this ruling today.

“Conservatives Fear 4th Circuit Is Slipping Away; Inaction from the White House and gridlock on the Hill leave four slots sitting vacant”: When I previously linked to this article, it was located behind the new, yet quite annoying, free registration wall now in existence at the web site of Legal Times. Today, law.com has reposted the article at this link in a manner that makes it freely accessible to all, no registration required.

Linguistic Help 4 Supreme Court: Is the message “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” reasonably understood to encourage illegal drug use — as a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court held in a ruling issued last month and as I likewise agree — or is the message meaningless gibberish — as the student who displayed a banner containing the message has argued?

In a post titled “The Supreme Court Fails Semantics” at “Language Log,” Bill Poser has a post concluding that “[t]he Court was therefore wrong in finding that the banner advocates the use of marijuana.” The Supreme Court’s majority and I, on the other hand, view the message as containing an implied imperative.

Thanks to “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times” for the pointer.

“Bad Heir Day: How Sandra Day O’Connor became the least powerful jurist in America.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Justice Talking Supreme Court Review”: This installment of the public radio program “Justice Talking” will be recorded this evening at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Although my schedule does not allow me to attend the event, I will be having lunch today with one of the panelists.

“Appeals judge to free couple in slave case”: The New York Daily News today contains an article that begins, “The wealthy Long Island couple accused of torturing two housekeepers and holding them as virtual slaves in their Muttontown mansion will go free before their September trial. A Manhattan federal appeals court overruled Judge Thomas Platt’s decision to keep Varsha Sabhnani, 35, and her husband, Mahender Sabhnani, 51, locked up despite their offer to post a multimillion-dollar bail package. The 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals sent the case back to Platt after deciding the couple had agreed to ‘extraordinary’ physical conditions that will ensure they show up for trial. The Sabhnanis will pay for a private security force to keep an eye on them 24 hours a day. And their bail package, secured by cash and property, has been increased by $1 million to $4.5 million.”

Newsday reports today that “Judges order bail plan for couple on slavery charges; But pair accused of enslaving workers still has difficult road to work out conditions.”

And The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Court: Bail for Couple Accused of Slaves.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

“Bush won’t cooperate in attorneys case; The president, asserting executive privilege, refuses to allow testimony and documents in a probe of the dismissals”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

The New York Times reports today that “Bush Won’t Deliver Aides in Prosecutor Case.”

The Washington Post reports that “New Privilege Claim by Bush Escalates Clash Over Firings.”

USA Today reports that “Hearings on firings likely to get silent treatment; Ex-aides told not to respond.”

And The Wall Street Journal reports that “Privilege Fight With Bush Poses Risk for Congress; To Discontented Voters, Lawmakers May Seem Too Focused on Probes” (temporary free access).

“Ex-Partner at Milberg Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Lawyer admits to kickbacks; Class-action attorney’s plea could help the U.S. snag a bigger fish.”

The Washington Post reports that “Guilty Plea Puts Pressure On Firm; Ex-Milberg Weiss Official to Pay Fine, Help Government.”

Josh Gerstein of The New York Sun reports that “Big Tort Lawyer Turns State’s Evidence.”

USA Today reports that “Plea may aid case against law partners; Milberg Weiss famous for class action lawsuits.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that “Former Milberg Partner May Help U.S. Build Case” (temporary free access).

And law.com reports that “Milberg Weiss’ Bershad Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy in Kickback Plan; Name partner at securities plaintiffs law firm agrees to cooperate and to forfeit $7.75 million.”

“Porn-viewing curbs urged; Delco man faces perv counts”: The Philadelphia Daily News today contains an article that begins, “A federal judge yesterday ordered the attorney for John Jackey Worman, of Delaware County, charged in January with multiple counts of manufacturing child porn, to file court papers by Monday on why his client should be permitted to view an unlimited number of child-porn images he allegedly made.”

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports today that “Child-porn defendant seeks freer access to his videos.”

And The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Feds: Defense Atty. Abused Porn Evidence.”

“Court to hear arguments in ‘light’ smokes case”: Reuters provides a report that begins, “Several major tobacco companies are set to go to a U.S. appellate court on Tuesday to argue about whether a $200 billion lawsuit against them by ‘light’ cigarette smokers should proceed as a class action.”

“Gonzales Was Told of FBI Violations; After Bureau Sent Reports, Attorney General Said He Knew of No Wrongdoing”: This front page article appears today in The Washington Post.

“Senate rejects Brownback’s concerns about judge”: Reuters provides a report that begins, “The U.S. Senate on Monday confirmed as a federal judge a woman who attended a same-sex commitment ceremony, overwhelmingly rejecting the concerns of a Republican senator running for the White House. The vote was 83-4 in favor of elevating Michigan state judge Janet Neff to federal district court.”

“Reviving Title VII’s Protection Against Pay Discrimination In the Wake of the Supreme Court’s Harsh Decision: A Call for Congressional Action.” Joanna Grossman and Deborah Brake today have this essay online at FindLaw.