Whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess firearms is so clearly cert.-worthy that the District of Columbia’s application for additional time in which to file a petition for writ of certiorari should be denied: At “SCOTUSblog” last night, Lyle Denniston had a post pointing to this persuasive response from counsel for the parties that prevailed before the D.C. Circuit. Perhaps counsel for the District of Columbia now regrets not having raised the ground of conflicts with scheduled vacations in their recently-filed request for an extension of time.

Update: Lyle has updated his post this morning to note that the Chief Justice granted the requested extension yesterday, apparently before the plaintiffs’ opposition reached him. In any event, these extensions are routinely granted by the Justices as a matter of course.

“Because the escalation of a sentence based on undisclosed evidence raises serious due process concerns, we construe the rule to require a sentencing court either to disclose sufficient details about the evidence to give the defendant a reasonable opportunity to respond or, failing that, to refrain from relying on the evidence.” On behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton today issued an opinion that begins, “What happens when a district court, applying the advisory sentencing guidelines, not only increases a sentence based on its own fact findings but also does so on the basis of evidence never fully disclosed to the criminal defendant?”

The opinion’s listing of counsel discloses that even though both the criminal defendant and the federal prosecutor were represented by counsel, the Sixth Circuit had Law Professor Douglas A. Berman, author of the “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog, serve as court-appointed amicus on appeal.

Update: Doug’s blog post about the ruling can be accessed here.

“Dress code goes up on appeal; Napa schools challenge ruling in Redwood case”: The Napa Valley Register today contains an article that begins, “Redwood Middle School’s controversial dress code is heading to the California Court of Appeal, even before there is a final ruling in the legal challenge to the code brought by several Redwood parents and students. The Napa Valley Unified School District has decided to appeal Napa County Superior Court Ray Guadagni’s preliminary injunction, temporarily suspending the dress code at the north Napa middle school. Guadagni held earlier this month that the parents and students had a good chance of winning on their claim that the code violates free speech rights of students.”

My most recent earlier coverage can be viewed at this link.

“Padilla charges don’t measure up to accusations; A conviction in his trial wouldn’t be for alleged plot to set off ‘dirty bomb'”: This article appears today in USA Today.

“Dems grapple with appeals nominee, high court’s future”: The Hill today contains an article that begins, “Among the four appeals court nominees quietly announced by the White House late Tuesday is a candidate who could heighten Senate tensions over judicial nominees. Shalom Stone is the only nominee on this week’s slate who faces the challenge of winning over two Democratic home-state senators. Judicial appointees not OK’d by their senators through the traditional ‘blue slip’ method rarely make it to a floor vote, and both New Jersey senators yesterday appeared to be on the fence about Stone.”

“What Will the Outcome of the 2008 Election Mean for the Supreme Court? Why One Outcome Could Change the Court Profoundly; the Other, Not at All.” Edward Lazarus has this essay online today at FindLaw.

“Michigan Supreme Court, on Party Line Vote, Upholds Michigan Voter ID Law Against Constitutional Challenge”: Law Professor Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law” blog. Rick has posted the ruling online at this link.

In news coverage, The Detroit Free Press provides an update headlined “Voters must have photo ID, Michigan Supreme Court rules.”

The Detroit News provides an update headlined “Michigan Supreme Court upholds photo ID requirement for voters.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Mich. Court Upholds Voter Photo ID Law.”

“Without a plot, is Padilla guilty? Prosecutors say they don’t have to link the US citizen to a specific terror plan.” Warren Richey will have this article Thursday in The Christian Science Monitor.

“We hold that a license plate check does not constitute a Fourth Amendment search.” So concludes an opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

“Giuliani: Abortion Not a Test for Judges.” The AP provides a report that begins, “Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, a proponent of abortion rights, said Wednesday he would not use a judicial nominee’s stand on the issue or the landmark Supreme Court decision as a litmus test.”

“First lady Midge Rendell uninjured in Philly car accident”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A sport utility vehicle transporting Gov. Ed Rendell’s wife was struck broadside by a car that ran a red light, but no one was seriously injured, state police said. Midge Rendell, a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was riding in the SUV around 7:30 p.m. Tuesday when it was hit by the luxury car, according to state police.”

Trenton Thunder 5, Binghamton Mets 1: When I decided to spend the early part of this afternoon watching the Trenton Thunder, the AA minor league affiliate of the New York Yankees, host the Binghamton Mets, the AA minor league affiliate of the New York Mets, little did I know that I’d also be spending that time with Alberto Gonzalez. He was 3-4 at the plate, with a run scored and an RBI.

Yankees pitcher Phil Hughes, on a rehab assignment with the Thunder, pitched four strong innings to lead off the game. Unfortunately, actual thunder, lightning, and the heavy rain that accompanied them caused the game to be delayed after seven and one-half innings. After the rain had cleared and sunny skies returned, the home plate umpire walked out to survey the field and declared it unplayable, resulting in a rain-shortened victory for the Thunder. You can access the box score at this link, while wraps are available here and here.

Programming note: Because my appellate court filings for this week — a Brief for Appellant, and an answer in opposition to an application for reargument in an appeal that one of my clients recently won — are completed and out the door, my schedule allows for some out of the office fun this afternoon. Whether the weather will cooperate remains to be seen. In any event, additional posts will appear later this afternoon.

“Insider sees business tilt on top court”: The Philadelphia Inquirer today contains an article that begins, “U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement said in Philadelphia yesterday that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. had taken a pronounced pro-business approach, and suggested that it could carry over into the next term.”

Instead of continuing to await the confirmation of a successor, Fourth Circuit Judge H. Emory Widener, Jr. takes senior status, effective immediately: That court’s own listing of judges confirms Judge Widener’s change in status. (Via “South Carolina Appellate Law Blog“).

“Court upholds pat-down searches at 49er games”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “A state appeals court swatted down a challenge by two San Francisco 49ers fans to pat-down searches at the team’s stadium Tuesday, saying they tacitly agreed to be checked when they bought their season tickets.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling by a divided three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District at this link.

Last week’s installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com criticized a similar recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

If ticket-holders to a sporting event are deemed to consent to an allegedly unconstitutional search by showing up to attend the game, would passengers who have no realistic choice but to use a municipality’s public transportation system to travel to and from work be prohibited from challenging officially-enforced segregated public transit accommodations based on the supposed “consent” of those who ride public transit?

“School district will appeal Tigger ruling; Superior court judge says dress code defies First Amendment”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

“Democrats pledge support for wide access to abortion”: The Chicago Tribune contains this article today.

And The New York Times reports today that “Democrats Attack Bush on Women’s Health Issues.”

“Justice at Guantanamo: Congress has another chance to repair the rules for handling detainees in the war on terrorism.” This editorial appears today in The Washington Post.

“Case against UNC coach may reach Supreme Court”: The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina today contains an article that begins, “A nine-year-old sexual harassment lawsuit against UNC women’s soccer coach Anson Dorrance could be headed to the highest court in the land. Lawyers in the state Attorney General’s Office filed a petition last week with the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case originally brought by former UNC-Chapel Hill soccer player Melissa Jennings. Jennings claims that Dorrance sexually harassed her and the university failed to take appropriate action.”

Originally, in April 2006, a divided three-judge Fourth Circuit panel affirmed the dismissal of this lawsuit. My earlier coverage of that ruling appears at this link. After granting rehearing en banc, the full Fourth Circuit, almost one year to the day later, reinstated by a vote of 8-2 the plaintiff’s Title IX claim and also overturned the grant of summary judgment on the plaintiff’s civil rights claim against two defendants. My earlier coverage of the en banc ruling appears here.

“Bush taps Conrad for appeals post; He could become 2nd N.C. judge on court”: This article appears today in The Charlotte Observer.

And The Newark Star-Ledger reports today that “Bush sidesteps N.J. senators, nominates federal judge.”

Meanwhile, allow me to congratulate fellow Emory Law grad Catharina Haynes on her nomination yesterday to the Fifth Circuit.

Available online from SSRN: Law Professor Ronald D. Rotunda has an article entitled “Holding Enemy Combatants in the Wake of Hamdan” (abstract with links for download).

And Law Professor Kurt T. Lash has an paper titled “The Puzzling Persistence of a Missing Word: The Tenth Amendment, Popular Sovereignty and ‘Expressly’ Delegated Power” (abstract with links for download).

Thanks to “Legal Theory Blog” for the pointers (here and here).

“Pleading Standards After Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly“: Law Professor Scott Dodson has this essay online at Virginia Law Review In Brief.

“Gonzales’ appalling disregard for liberties”: The St. Petersburg Times contains this editorial today.

“16 Detainees Transferred From Guantanamo; Bahraini Man Who Attempted Suicide Nearly 2 Dozen Times Is Among Those Sent to Saudi Arabia”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“Obama, Clinton slam court on abortion ruling”: Reuters provides this report.

The Associated Press is reporting: An article reports that “Bush Nominates 4 to Federal Bench.” My earlier coverage appears in the post immediately below.

In other news, an article is headlined “Court: NJ Man Can’t Recoup Child Support.” You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of New Jersey at this link.

And an article reports that “Ex-Bush Aide Says Again She Won’t Appear.”

The White House nominates four to the U.S. Courts of Appeals: You can view the announcement at this link.

The nominations are: “Robert J. Conrad, Jr., of North Carolina, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, vice James Dickson Phillips, Jr., retired. Catharina Haynes, of Texas, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, vice Harold R. DeMoss, Jr., retired. Shalom D. Stone, of New Jersey, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, vice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., elevated. John Daniel Tinder, of Indiana, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, vice Daniel A. Manion, retiring.”

“Target Practice: Justice Scalia sets his sights on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“D.C. begins its gun law appeal”: Lyle Denniston has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.” Yesterday’s Court filing shows that the District of Columbia has secured the assistance of both Walter Dellinger and Tom Goldstein to argue against the “individual rights” view of the Second Amendment.

Accordingly, a tax protester challenging his conviction and also a sentence enhancement based on earlier convictions would be doubly out-of-luck in the Fifth Circuit: So what if five Justices serving on the U.S. Supreme Court have stated when writing separately that they believe the Court’s decision from 1998 in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, holding that a defendant’s prior criminal convictions need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury before they can be used to enhance a defendant’s sentence, reached an incorrect result?

Today, the majority on a partially divided three-judge Fifth Circuit panel issued a decision opining that arguments predicated on the assertion that Almendarez-Torres doesn’t constitute good law no longer serve as a legitimate basis for appeal. Indeed, the majority characterizes the argument as on par with the claim that the federal tax code is unconstitutional.

“Three noteworthy cases on 9th Circuit docket”: Today in The Honolulu Advertiser, Horace Cooper has an op-ed that begins, “The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is proving itself once again to be a powerhouse among the circuits. And based on some of the cases that it will decide this year it might actually edge out the D.C. Circuit as the most influential circuit court in the nation.”

“Short Sex Offender’s Probation Upheld”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A judge had valid reasons for sentencing a 5-foot-1 sex offender to probation, even though she cited the offender’s height as part of her rationale, the Nebraska Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Nebraska Court of Appeals at this link.

En banc Eleventh Circuit decides whether a federal criminal defendant’s failure in the trial court to raise the defense of double jeopardy constitutes waiver or forfeiture: As today’s unanimous en banc ruling explains, a finding of waiver can be worse for the defendant than a finding of forfeiture. For this particular defendant, however, neither result is especially helpful.

“Free Speech Suit Filed; Student’s Blog Entry At Issue”: The Hartford Courant today contains an article that begins, “A Lewis S. Mills High School student who was barred from running for class office after she called administrators a derogatory term on an Internet blog is accusing top school officials of violating her free speech rights.”