“Panel to study state’s judicial election laws”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “California’s chief justice, citing the increasing influence of money and partisan politics on judicial campaigns elsewhere, has created a commission to study possible changes in the state’s judicial election laws.”

And yesterday’s edition of The Press-Enterprise of Riverside, California reported that “Inland judges keep tabs on impartiality.”

“Book Says Souter Almost Left Court”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Justice David Souter contemplated resigning from the Supreme Court because he was so upset by the decision that sealed the 2000 presidential election for George W. Bush, a new book says.”

“Senator Lott drawing fire again on race from civil rights groups”: The Hill today contains an article that begins, “When Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) broke ranks and voted with Judiciary Committee Republicans in August to back the most contentious judicial nominee of the 110th Congress, she surprised nearly everyone with a stake in the battle. Everyone, perhaps, except Republican Whip Trent Lott of Mississippi.”

“Bush federal judge pick criticized; Getchell was not on joint list of nominees favored by Sens. Warner, Webb”: This article appears today in The Richmond Times-Dispatch.

The Virginian-Pilot reports today that “Bush snubs Virginia’s senators in pick for judge seat.”

And The Washington Post reports that “Bush’s Picks for Court Spur Criticism by Warner, Webb.”

The White House today announced two nominations for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: The nominees are E. Duncan Getchell, Jr., of Virginia; and Steve A. Matthews, of South Carolina.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Webb expresses frustration with Bush’s nomination for 4th Circuit Court.”

“Judge Invalidates Patriot Act Provisions; FBI Is Ordered to Stop Data-Collection Tactic”: This front page article will appear Friday in The Washington Post.

In Friday’s issue of The New York Times, Adam Liptak will have an article headlined “Judge Voids F.B.I. Tool Granted by Patriot Act.”

And law.com reports that “Federal Judge Rules Unconstitutional Parts of Patriot Act.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York at this link.

“Justice Department Official Resigns”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Assistant Attorney General Peter D. Keisler, who oversaw the Bush administration’s lengthy legal fight over the rights of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, announced his resignation Thursday as head of the civil division.”

The AP report notes that Keisler remains as a nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Today’s press release from the U.S. Department of Justice can be accessed here.

“Judge says rules that snared Fieger unfair”: This article appears today in The Detroit Free Press.

My earlier coverage of Tuesday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan appears at this link.

“Judge reinstates gang-rape lawsuit against CU”: The Rocky Mountain News provides an update that begins, “Lisa Simpson cried Thursday when she learned an appeals court revived her lawsuit claiming she and another co-ed were gang-raped at a University of Colorado football recruiting party.”

The Denver Post provides a news update headlined “Court lets Simpson suit against CU proceed” that begins, “A lawsuit by two women who claimed they were sexually assaulted at a 2001 party attended by University of Colorado football players and recruits was reinstated today by the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The opinion overturned a ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn, who ruled in April 2005 that the two women had not proven that the university was ‘deliberately indifferent’ to the risk that players and recruits would assault them.”

The Boulder Daily Camera provides a news update headlined “Judges: CU had policy of showing recruits ‘good time.’”

And The Associated Press reports that “U. of Colo. Sex Assault Lawsuit Revived.”

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

“Firing over Web site of nude wife upheld; Police officer not protected by free speech, judges rule”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

Today in The Arizona Daily Star, Howard Fischer has an article headlined “No job for Chandler cop fired in sex-site case; Appeals court nixes bid to return to work.”

Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports today that “Court Rejects Suit by Police Officer Fired for Role in Sex Videos; Ninth Circuit Panel Rebuffs Arizona Man’s First Amendment, Privacy Claims.”

And Reuters reports that “Arizona cop loses job over porn.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Ninth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

Third Circuit sees potential merit in poultry workers’ lawsuit alleging that Tyson Foods, Inc. violated the Fair Labor Standards Act in failing to pay the workers for time they spend “donning and doffing,” as well as washing, their work gear: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at this link.

“Legal groups putting God on the docket; Christian advocacy is flourishing as new law field for faithful”: This article appeared yesterday in The Chicago Tribune.

“Court rules on Mojave cross”: The Press-Enterprise of Riverside, California provides a news update that begins, “An appellate court today upheld a federal judge’s 2005 ruling that a proposed land-swap to preserve a Christian cross located in a remote area of the Mojave National Preserve violates the separation of church and state.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court again rules against Mojave cross.”

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

Oral argument becomes somewhat more difficult to obtain in the Second Circuit: While I was away on vacation last week, that federal appellate court issued this order.

“Judge rules groups that pushed Prop 2 can’t intervene in affirmative action case”: The Detroit News provides an update that begins, “The group that backed Michigan’s ballot drive that banned affirmative action in much of the public sector may not intervene in a court case challenging the constitutionality of the ban, a federal appeals court ruled today.”

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

“Judge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A federal judge struck down parts of the revised USA Patriot Act on Thursday, saying investigators must have a court’s approval before they can order Internet providers to turn over records without telling customers.”

“May the payor of a bribe to a state official conspire with that official to extort property from himself in violation of the Hobbs Act?” A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit answered that question “no” in an opinion issued today. Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton is the opinion’s author.

Programming note: I am traveling to Atlanta this morning, where tomorrow I’ll be speaking at the Federal Bar Association Annual Meeting and Convention. Additional posts will appear later today.

“Va. Tech Victims’ Families Weigh Suits Against State; State’s Immunity May Be Subjected To Challenge”: This article will appear Thursday in The New York Times.

“Despite DNA Test, Prosecutor Is Retrying Case”: Thursday’s edition of The New York Times will contain this article.

“Derailing Southwick may take filibuster”: This article appears today in The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi.

“[W]e conclude that the government’s evidence concerning Mr. Schaefer’s use of the Internet, standing alone, was not sufficient to establish that the child-pornography images at issue moved across state lines.” So holds a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in a ruling issued today. According to the decision, “we decline to assume that Internet use automatically equates with a movement across state lines.” The ruling is a victory for Denver-based Assistant Federal Public Defender Howard A. Pincus, lead counsel for the defendant-appellant on appeal. Pincus and I worked as co-clerks many years ago for the same judge on the Third Circuit.

“Book says Souter mulled resignation after Bush v. Gore”: So states this post at the “Yeas & Nays” blog at Examiner.com, previewing Jeffrey Toobin’s forthcoming book, “The Nine.”

And The Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader today contains an article headlined “Did Souter cry over 2000 recount vote?”

The Associated Press is reporting: An article headlined “Judge Scolds U.S. on Wiretapping Records” reports on a decision that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued today in the case captioned Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Justice.

And in other news, “Some Lawmakers Wary of Surveillance Law.”

“Judge rules for Fieger; Federal edict strikes down state court rules used to discipline lawyer”: The Detroit News today contains an article that begins, “Embattled Southfield attorney Geoffrey Fieger scored a victory Tuesday when a federal judge in Detroit declared unconstitutional Michigan court rules that were used to discipline him.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Judge Sides With Ex-Kevorkian Lawyer.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at this link.

“Noriega Lawyers Ask to Block Extradition”: The Associated Press provides this report.

By a vote of 2-1, three-judge Ninth Circuit panel holds that the City of Chandler, Arizona did not violate police officer’s First Amendment rights by terminating him for “participating in (performing in, recording and purveying) a sexually explicit website with his wife”: You can access today’s Ninth Circuit ruling at this link.

The majority opinion’s “Discussion” section begins, “The major issue before us is whether Ronald Dible’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech was violated when he was terminated for maintaining and participating in a sexually explicit website with his wife, Megan Dible. In fact, for all practical purposes, the other issues in this case hinge on the decision of that issue. We will, therefore, consider it first and consider the other issues raised by the Dibles thereafter.”

Senior Circuit Judge William C. Canby, Jr. dissented from the majority’s unwillingness to hold that the officer’s firing violated the First Amendment. Judge Canby writes in his separate opinion: “Now, I recognize that pornography, although apparently popular, is not a very respected subject of First Amendment protection in many quarters. The majority opinion here reflects that distaste, variously characterizing Dible’s expressive activities as ‘vulgar,’ ‘indecent,’ ‘sleazy,’ and ‘disreputable.’ But vigorous enforcement of the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment often requires that we protect speech that many, even a majority, find offensive. Pornography, and sexual expression in general, is protected by the First Amendment when it does not constitute obscenity (and there is no showing that Dible’s expression meets that extreme standard). We should accept that fact and accord Dible’s expression the constitutional protection to which it is entitled.”

“Beatty takes his place in history on Supreme Court; Will take oath as second black state high court justice since Reconstruction”: The Spartanburg (S.C.) Herald-Journal today contains an article that begins, “Spartanburg’s Don Beatty will be sworn in as a South Carolina Supreme Court justice this afternoon, taking his place in history as the second black man to sit on that bench since Reconstruction.”

The remainder of the alphabet was sadly unavailable for litigation: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its ruling today in the case captioned ABC v. DEF. The opinion explains how the case came to have that unusual caption. Demonstrating that being toward the start of the alphabet isn’t all bad, ABC has achieved a partial victory in today’s ruling.

“May a municipal jail, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, withhold a portion of an inmate’s canteen-account funds in order to cover the costs of booking, room and board without providing the inmate with a hearing before it withholds the money?” So begins an opinion that Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton issued today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The court’s answer to that question is “yes.”

“Microsoft Patent Win in Court May Cut Its Chances in Congress”: Bloomberg News provides a report that begins, “Microsoft Corp.’s success in reversing a $1.52 billion trial loss was the latest in a series of court victories that may undermine its chance for broad changes in U.S. patent law this year.”

“Muslim sues O.C. over right to wear head scarf; Deputies asked the woman to remove her head covering while in custody in O.C.” The Los Angeles Times today contains an article that begins, “A Muslim whose religious practice requires that she cover her head in public sued the Orange County Sheriff’s Department on Tuesday, alleging her rights were violated when jail officials forced her to remove a head scarf while locked up for about eight hours.”

And The Orange County Register reports today that “Muslim woman sues sheriff; Woman says religious rights were violated when deputies forced her to remove her head scarf.”

“D.C. Case Could Shape Gun Laws; Supreme Court Is Asked to Uphold Ban”: Robert Barnes and David Nakamura have this front page article today in The Washington Post, which also contains an editorial entitled “The District Appeals: The city defends its gun law — and opens the door to a definitive reading of the Second Amendment.”

And The Washington Times reports today that “City asks high court to uphold gun ban.”

“Murder case turns on 41-year diagnosis: Did a 1966 shot cause an officer’s death? A medical fight looms.” The Philadelphia Inquirer contains this article today.

“New Book Details Cheney Lawyer’s Efforts to Expand Executive Power”: This front page article appears today in The Washington Post.