“[T]he weight of authority suggests that accurate news reporting — even when it is likely to have an adverse impact on the subjects of the report — usually does not give rise to an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress”: Yesterday, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a decision affirming a federal district court’s dismissal of claims for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress asserted by two former undercover police officers against a television station in Albuquerque that had revealed their identities and their undercover status in the context of a televised report about their suspected involvement in an alleged incident of sexual assault. Shortly after the broadcast, the police department announced publicly that it had concluded the officers were not involved in the alleged sexual assault.

“Agents of Change”: In the July 13, 2007 issue of CQ Weekly, columnist Kenneth Jost will have an essay that begins, “From the bench on the final day of this Supreme Court term, Stephen G. Breyer offered a stinging dissent in the case limiting local school board power to adopt racial mixing policies — but the barb also summed up moderate and liberal frustration at the court’s behavior during the preceding nine months.”

“History, Principle and Affirmative Action”: Today in The New York Times, Stanley Fish has an op-ed (TimesSelect temporary pass-through link) that begins, “On its face, the affirmative action case decided on June 28 by the Supreme Court turns on whether two school districts in Washington and Kentucky violated the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection guarantee when they assigned children to schools on the basis of race.”

“Prosecution rests in Padilla terror trial; After 22 witnesses and hundreds of exhibits, the prosecution rested in the Jose Padilla terror trial; The defense case begins next week”: This article appears today in The Miami Herald.

“Contempt for Congress”: The New York Times today contains an editorial that begins, “The Bush administration’s disregard for the rule of law hit another low this week when Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, defied a Congressional subpoena.”

“Happy Blogiversary: It’s been 10 years since the blog was born.” This article appears today in The Wall Street Journal. Earlier this year, “How Appealing” celebrated its five-year anniversary.

Available online from law.com: An article reports that “High Court Loss Prompts Malpractice Claim Against McGuireWoods; Company claims partner raised rates without authorization and wasted time trying to prevent it from retaining RICO specialist.”

Shannon P. Duffy has an article headlined “3rd Circuit: Federal Transfer Doesn’t Reset SOL Clock.” You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at this link.

A profile of Sidley Austin attorney Virginia A. Seitz, described as the first woman from that law firm to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court, is headlined “How One Part-Time Lawyer Leads a Very Full Life.”

And the brand new installment of my “On Appeal” column is headlined “Appeal Now or Later? A Look at Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).”

Philadelphia Phillies 13, St. Louis Cardinals 3: Friday the 13th began ominously for the Phillies, as the team stood just one loss away from 10,000 losses in the history of the franchise, facing an opponent that won the 2006 World Series.

Fortunately for Friday evening’s sell-out crowd, which included me and my son, the Phillies did not suffer from triskaidekaphobia, as they trounced the Cardinals by a score of 13-3. The sell-out was also the 13th of the season at beautiful Citizens Bank Park. And the Phillies pounded out a whopping 23 hits in the winning effort. To say something nice about the Cardinals, I will not overlook that Albert Pujols hit a tape measure solo home run to Ashburn Alley in dead center field in the top of the 8th inning, with the Cardinals trailing 11-1.

My son and I also have tickets to the remaining two games in this series. Tomorrow afternoon we will have the good fortune to sit in the Diamond Club just eight rows behind home plate. And Sunday evening we will be in our regular Sunday partial season ticket seats.

You can access the box score at this link, while wraps from MLB.com are available here and here. And The Associated Press reports that “Phils Rout Cards to Stay at 9,999 Losses.”

“Prosecution Rests in Padilla Trial”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “For a star defendant whose name is known around the world, Jose Padilla has become almost a bit player in his terrorism support trial – and some observers say the federal government may not have proved its case against him.”

“Closing the courthouse doors: With Roberts at helm, ordinary Americans lose at Supreme Court.” Law Professor Joseph Thai has this op-ed today in The Charlotte Observer.

“Va. Pain Doctor Gets Nearly 5-Year Term”: The Associated Press provides this report.

Death resulting from a woman’s unintentional consumption of peanuts resulted in a $1 million verdict against a paramedic service: And today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has overturned that verdict in a decision that you can access here. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner wrote the opinion.

In the July 23, 2007 issue of The New Republic: The magazine will contain an editorial entitled “Roberts Rules: John Roberts shows the yawning gap between modesty and obfuscation.”

And Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen will have an essay entitled “Court Approval: Will John Roberts ever get better?”

“UK court rules for press freedom over privacy rights”: Roger Parloff has this post today at Fortune magazine’s “Legal Pad” blog.

“Mistrial in Rape Case With Banned Words”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Before a jury was even seated, a judge declared a mistrial in a sex-assault case where he had barred the words ‘rape’ and ‘victim.'”

And The Lincoln (Neb.) Journal Star reports today that “Judge declares mistrial in Safi case.”

“In this appeal, we consider whether a public college president’s decision to cancel a student government election because of content published in a school newspaper violates the First Amendment rights of the student journalists who produce that publication.” So begins the majority opinion that a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.

The very next sentence of Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi‘s majority opinion states, “We conclude that, in the circumstances presented in this case, the school administrator’s actions did violate the First Amendment.”

Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs has issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part that begins:

I concur in the majority’s result insofar as it affirms the dismissal of some claims, but I dissent insofar as it reverses the grant of qualified immunity.

I concede that this short opinion of mine does not consider or take into account the majority opinion. So I should disclose at the outset that I have not read it. I suppose this is unusual, so I explain why.

* * *

The majority has fulfilled its responsibility to explain at some length its vacatur of a part of the district court’s judgment. But this is not a case that should occupy the mind of a person who has anything consequential to do. In a nutshell, the editors of the College Voice student newspaper used it as a campaign flyer to promote the self-styled radicals of the “Student Union” party in a long-ago student election, and the college president, finding that the partisan use of student-activity funds made a mockery of the election rules, directed that the election be re-run. The gist of the complaint is that the editors’ speech was chilled, which is deemed to be a bad thing.

This is a case about nothing. Injunctive relief from the school’s election rules is now moot (if it was ever viable); and plaintiffs’ counsel conceded at oral argument that the only relief sought in this litigation is nominal damages. Now, after years of litigation over two dollars, the majority will impose on a busy judge to conduct a trial on this silly thing, and require a panel of jurors to set aside their more important duties of family and business in order to decide it.

And Chief Judge Jacobs’s opinion concludes, “This prolonged litigation has already cost the school a lot of money that could better have been spent to enrich course offerings or expand student day-care. If this case ends with a verdict for plaintiffs (anything is possible with a jury), the district court will have the opportunity to consider whether the exercise merits an award of attorneys’ fees in excess of one-third of two dollars.”

Majority on divided three-judge Sixth Circuit panel rejects the latest iteration of Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman’s challenge to his Tennessee death sentence: You can access today’s ruling at this link.

“House Panel Rejects Bush’s Privilege Claim”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

Available online from law.com: An article reports that “N.J. Ethics Panel Finds Judge Abused Office by Interceding in Son’s Dispute, Urges Censure.”

In other news, “District Attorney in Ga. Teen Sex Case Under Fire; Video used against Genarlow Wilson is now subject of accusations against local prosecutor.”

And an article reports that “2nd Circuit Attempts to Clarify Fee Rule in Civil Rights Cases.” You can access yesterday’s amended Second Circuit ruling at this link.

“Harriet Miers’s Contempt of Congress: Are Conservatives About To Neuter Congress, While Claiming Full Legal Justification for this Separation-of-Powers Violation?” John W. Dean has this essay online today at FindLaw.

“Prosecutor Under Fire in Teen Sex Case”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “David McDade has handed out some 35 copies of a video of teenagers having sex at a party. McDade is no porno kingpin, but a district attorney.”

“Some British Judges to Lose Their Wigs”: The Associated Press provides this report.

The criminal suspect’s last name was Askew, and as the result of a disputed police search so was his jacket: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today issued an order granting rehearing en banc in United States v. Askew.

In a decision issued in April 2007, the majority on a divided three-judge panel held that “the police during a Terry show-up may reasonably maneuver a suspect’s outer clothing (such as unzipping an outer jacket so a witness can see the suspect’s clothing) when taking that step could assist a witness’s identification.” Once police maneuvered his jacket, the askew nature of Askew’s clothing revealed that he was a felon in possession of a handgun.

It appears from today’s order that Senior Circuit Judge Harry T. Edwards, the dissenter on the original three-judge panel, has elected to participate in the rehearing en banc. Senior circuit judges do not have a vote on whether to grant rehearing en banc, but if rehearing en banc is granted they can participate in the decision if they were on the original three-judge panel and the case is pending in their home circuit.

Assuming that neither of the two active D.C. Circuit judges in the original three-judge panel’s majority voted in favor of rehearing en banc, at least six of the remaining eight active judges on the D.C. Circuit must have voted for rehearing en banc. That doesn’t bode well for the panel’s decision surviving en banc review unscathed.

My earlier coverage of the original three-judge panel’s ruling appears at this link.

“Going South on Southwick? The disgraceful performance of Senate Democrats.” Edward Whelan has this essay today at National Review Online.

“House Panel: Miers Wrong to Miss Hearing.” The Associated Press provides this report.

“Judge Okays Libby Probation; Criticizes Bush’s Clemency Order”: Josh Gerstein of The New York Sun provides this news update.

The Supreme Court of Washington State delivers some bad news for the new AT&T: In a decision issued today, Washington State’s highest court has ruled 6-3 that an arbitration clause contained in Cingular’s standard subscriber contracts prohibiting class action litigation or arbitration is invalid, thereby voiding the arbitration clause in its entirety. Today’s ruling consists of both a majority opinion and a dissenting opinion.

“The Democratic (Not So) Short List”: Tom Goldstein has this interesting post at “SCOTUSblog.”

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton holds that I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s sentence of supervised release remains in effect: You can access today’s decision at this link.

“Showdown Looms Over Fired Prosecutors”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Specter leads revolt on stalled nomination”: The Politico provides a report that begins, “Social conservatives are mobilizing for a new showdown with Democrats over judicial appointments, answering a call to action from an unlikely source: Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee whose moderate stances on abortion and other issues have made for an uneasy relationship with his party’s right-leaning base.”

“Harriet Miers Told to Shirk House Judiciary Hearing”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“Ping, Golf Club Maker, Scores Hole-in-One in High Court Ruling”: James Rowley of Bloomberg News provides a report that begins, “To golf club manufacturer Ping Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling relaxing antitrust standards looks like a hole-in-one.”

“A rare sighting: Reason in the law.” Paul Greenberg has this op-ed today in The Washington Times.

“Georgia teen sex case video stirs uproar; A U.S. attorney says the tape handed out by a district attorney constitutes ‘child pornography under federal law.'” This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution today contains an article headlined “Feds: Douglas DA violated porn laws.”

And The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Feds: Teen Sex Tape Is Child Pornography.”