“Supreme Court’s predictable ‘rebel'”: Columnist Ellen Goodman has this op-ed today in The Boston Globe.

“Appeals Court Rejects Lawsuit on Surveillance”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times provides this news update.

Meanwhile, from National Public Radio, this evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Court Limits Lawsuits Over Government Surveillance.” And today’s broadcast of “Day to Day” contained an audio segment entitled “Court Rejects Challenge to Domestic Surveillance.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Federal appeals court reverses Detroit judge’s ruling on Bush spying program”: The Detroit News provides this update.

Henry Weinstein of The Los Angeles Times provides a news update headlined “Court rules in favor of domestic spying program; Federal judges say the ACLU and other plaintiffs had no standing to challenge Bush’s warrantless surveillance effort.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Appeals Court Orders Surveillance Case Dismissed.”

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

“How to judge the Roberts Supreme Court: To ask how activist it was is useless; It’s wiser to review why the court was either deferential or assertive.” Law Professor Kermit Roosevelt has this op-ed today in The Christian Science Monitor.

BREAKING NEWS — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holds that the American Civil Liberties Union and its co-plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the National Security Administration’s interception without warrants of certain telephone and email communications: You can access today’s ruling, by a divided three-judge panel, at this link.

Circuit Judge Alice M. Batchelder issued the lead opinion, and Circuit Judge Julia Smith Gibbons issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. Judge Gibbons’s opinion begins, “The disposition of all of the plaintiffs’ claims depends upon the single fact that the plaintiffs have failed to provide evidence that they are personally subject to the [Terrorist Surveillance Program]. Without this evidence, on a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs cannot establish standing for any of their claims, constitutional or statutory. For this reason, I do not reach the myriad other standing and merits issues, the complexity of which is ably demonstrated by Judge Batchelder’s and Judge Gilman’s very thoughtful opinions, and I therefore concur in the judgment only.”

And Circuit Judge Ronald Lee Gilman dissented. He would hold that the plaintiffs possess standing and that “the [Terrorist Surveillance Program] as originally implemented violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.” Judge Gilman’s dissenting opinion concludes: “The closest question in this case, in my opinion, is whether the plaintiffs have the standing to sue. Once past that hurdle, however, the rest gets progressively easier. Mootness is not a problem because of the government’s position that it retains the right to opt out of the FISA regime whenever it chooses. Its AUMF and inherent-authority arguments are weak in light of existing precedent and the rules of statutory construction. Finally, when faced with the clear wording of FISA and Title III that these statutes provide the ‘exclusive means’ for the government to engage in electronic surveillance within the United States for foreign intelligence purposes, the conclusion becomes inescapable that the TSP was unlawful. I would therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.”

I previously collected extensive news coverage of the opinion and injunctive order that U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the Eastern District of Michigan issued on August 17, 2006 in posts you can access here, here, and here. And this law blogger’s first mention on the front page of The New York Times came in connection with this case, in Adam Liptak’s article headlined “Experts Fault Reasoning in Surveillance Decision.”

In early news coverage of today’s ruling, The Associated Press reports that “Court Nixes Suit Against Spying Program.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press discusses the U.S. Supreme Court‘s Term-ending decisions: He appeared on this past Saturday’s broadcast of C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal.” You can view the segment online, on demand, by clicking here (RealPlayer required).

“Libby Pays Fine; Judge Poses Probation Query”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

And today in The Washington Post, columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. has an op-ed entitled “An Unpardonable Act,” while columnist Eugene Robinson has an op-ed entitled “The Commuter in Chief.”

“Thad Cochran tries to rescue Bush nominee”: Tuesday’s edition of The Hill contained an article that begins, “Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) is making a last-ditch effort to save the nomination of an appellate court nominee from his home state by appealing to Democratic colleagues on the Appropriations Committee.”

“Columbia man the likely nominee for U.S. 4th Circuit judge”: This article appeared Tuesday in The State of Columbia, South Carolina.

“Judicial Vacancies Leave GOP With Empty Feeling”: In The Washington Post, today’s installment of Al Kamen’s “In the Loop” column begins, “Some Republicans are upset that the White House has nominated only 25 people to fill the 47 vacancies now on the federal judiciary. Not to worry. If history is any guide, President Bush can nominate as many people as he wants, but most of them will not don the black robes anytime soon.”

“The Supreme Court Denies Plaintiffs Standing to Challenge Bush Administration Activities That They Allege Violated the Establishment Clause: What This Decision, and Others This Term, Reveal About the Court.” Vikram David Amar has this essay online today at FindLaw.

“After Lobbying, Wetlands Rules Are Narrowed”: The New York Times on Friday will contain an article that begins, “After a concerted lobbying effort by property developers, mine owners and farm groups, the Bush administration scaled back proposed guidelines for enforcing a key Supreme Court ruling governing protected wetlands and streams.”

Available online from law.com: Marcia Coyle has an article headlined “A Tough High Court Term for Antitrust Plaintiffs; Four rulings limit access to recourse under antitrust laws.”

In other news, “2nd Circuit Upholds Student’s Suspension for Instant-Messaging Violent Image.” My earlier coverage of today’s ruling appears at this link.

And an article reports that “ALM Sold to Incisive Media; Deal expected to close at the end of the third quarter.”

“Supreme Court’s unsettling turn”: This editorial appears today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

Available today at National Review Online: Jonathan H. Adler has an essay entitled “How Conservative Is this Court? Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito make a difference, but for now it’s the Kennedy Court.”

Roger Clegg has an essay entitled “A Good — If Mixed Bag … with a puzzle inside” that begins, “For those of us who don’t like racial preferences and classifications, the news last week from the Supreme Court in the two cases involving race-based student assignments was very good, with a little bad, and a puzzling question.”

And Allison R. Hayward has an essay entitled “A Life of Its Own: Wisconsin and the law of unintended consequences” that begins, “Campaign-finance-reform advocates just lost one.”

“Justices to Teach, Travel in Europe”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Here’s a proposition a majority of the Supreme Court can agree on, without rancor or regard for ideology: Europe is a good place to spend the summer. At least five of the nine justices will travel there this summer, mostly to take part in international programs sponsored by U.S. law schools.”

“Sharpton: Wilson sentence ‘wicked,’ ‘illegal.'” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution provides a news update that begins, “Longtime civil rights activist Al Sharpton headlined an energetic rally at the Douglas County courthouse Thursday in support of Genarlow Wilson, who is serving a 10-year prison sentence for engaging in oral sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Rally Held for Inmate in Teen Sex Case.”

Seventh Circuit holds that U.S. Supreme Court‘s recent ruling in United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez that an erroneous failure to allow a defendant’s chosen lawyer to represent him at trial violates the Constitution without regard to consequences does not apply retroactively on habeas review: Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook today issued this interesting opinion on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel.

“Wasserstein Sells American Lawyer Unit”: The Associated Press provides this report.

Reuters reports that “Incisive Media to buy Wasserstein’s ALM for $630 million.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “Wasserstein to Sell American Lawyer for $630 Million.”

“Ninth Circuit to Make Judicial History with First Panel of Hispanic Judges”: The Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued a news release that begins, “The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will make judicial history next week when an appellate panel consisting of three judges of Hispanic descent hears oral arguments in Seattle. It will be the first all-Hispanic panel to sit in any of the nation’s federal courts of appeal since they were established in 1891.”

According to the news release, “Appellate panels are drawn randomly and there has been the possibility of an all-Hispanic panel in the Ninth Circuit since 1998. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has had at least three judges of Hispanic descent since 1994, but has not drawn an all-Hispanic panel yet.”

“Parents don’t need lawyers to fight for special-ed help; Ruling levels the field in school lawsuits”: This front page article appears today in The Houston Chronicle.

“Polarizing Campaign Finance Law”: Stuart Taylor Jr. has this essay in this week’s issue of National Journal.

You can catch the Federal Circuit on tour this October in New York City: Don’t yet know whether they’ll be playing at Madison Square Garden or perhaps Yankee Stadium, but Federal Circuit roadies should be ready for this October’s trip to the Big Apple. You can access a chart showing the dates and locations of the court’s sessions outside of Washington, D.C. by clicking here.

“This case once again presents an issue concerning the scope of prosecution history estoppel under the doctrine of equivalents. The case has been pending for almost twenty years and has been before the Supreme Court twice and before us twice en banc.” With a case name as enjoyable as Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., who would ever wish to see the litigation come to an end? Apparently not Festo Corp. whose appeal has today produced this ruling from a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

“This appeal concerns a First Amendment challenge to an eighth-grade student’s suspension for sharing with friends via the Internet a small drawing crudely, but clearly, suggesting that a named teacher should be shot and killed.” So begins an opinion that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.

“Incisive Media to acquire ALM”: Incisive Media issued this press release today.

And WSJ.com’s “Law Blog” provides a post titled “American Lawyer Media Sold to U.K. Firm for $630 Million.”

“Chinese Judge: Death Sentencing Uneven.” The Associated Press provides this report.

“The Right to Spend”: Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen will have this “The Way We Live Now” essay (TimesSelect temporary pass-through link) about the future of the McCain-Feingold law in this upcoming Sunday’s issue of The New York Times Magazine.

Update: The essay is now freely available at this link.

“A kick in the pants: Maybe the missing-trousers case was so compelling because it was more than just another frivolous lawsuit.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Frisking away our freedoms”: The St. Petersburg Times today contains an editorial that begins, “Fans of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers are asked to pay a lot of money and sit in the hot Florida sun to root for a team that has disappointed them in recent seasons. They shouldn’t also have to give up their privacy and dignity as the price of admission.”

“The Sky Isn’t Falling: Experience may be trumping hysteria over gay marriage.” The Washington Post contains this editorial today.

“Challenge to Lynn’s race policy is revived; High court buoys foes of school transfer rule”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.

“The Court Returns To Brown”: Columnist George F. Will has this op-ed today in The Washington Post.

“Worker sues over co-worker’s perfume; City planner contends Detroit should prohibit people from wearing scents in the workplace”: Yesterday’s edition of The Detroit News contained an article that begins, “An employee in the Detroit planning department filed a federal lawsuit against the city Tuesday, alleging her co-worker’s strong perfume has made it impossible for her to do her job.”

“Justice Denied”: The New York Times today contains an editorial that begins, “In the 1960s, Chief Justice Earl Warren presided over a Supreme Court that interpreted the Constitution in ways that protected the powerless — racial and religious minorities, consumers, students and criminal defendants. At the end of its first full term, Chief Justice John Roberts’s court is emerging as the Warren court’s mirror image. Time and again the court has ruled, almost always 5-4, in favor of corporations and powerful interests while slamming the courthouse door on individuals and ideals that truly need the court’s shelter.”