“Broadcom wins antitrust appeal against Qualcomm”: Reuters provides this report.

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

“Hawaii Ferry Sits Idle Amid Protests and Court Rulings”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

The Honolulu Advertiser reports today that “Kauai court asked to bar Hawaii Superferry.”

And The Honolulu Star-Bulletin reports that “Superferry saga moves to courts; Legal action taken by Kauai and Maui groups will be heard tomorrow.”

“Court upholds CIA’s power to keep president’s daily briefing secret”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

Today in The Oakland Tribune, Josh Richman reports that “Court lets old CIA briefs stay secret; Vietnam-era intelligence can sidestep Freedom of Information Act.”

In The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein reports that “Presidential Briefings May Be Kept Secret.”

And Reuters reports that “Even 40 years later CIA briefings to stay secret.”

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

“Appeals Court Dismisses Elevator Antitrust Suit”: This article appears today in The New York Sun.

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Second Circuit ruling can be found at this link.

“Exhibit A in Painting Court as Too Far Right”: Wednesday in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article that begins, “Lilly Ledbetter’s pay discrimination case before the Supreme Court raised no constitutional quandaries and never received much attention. Until it was decided.”

“Sex, Drugs & a Federal Prosecution: The shabby case against Dr. Bernard L. Rottschaefer.” Radley Balko has this essay online at Reason.

“Parker v. District of Columbia: DC Gun Ban Case.” The Federalist Society hosted this online debate last week (via “InstaPundit“).

Tenth Circuit reinstates First Amendment challenge to section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, by means of which Congress reinstated copyright protection for some foreign works already in the public domain: Law Professor Lawrence Lessig argued the appeal that produced this decision today from a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Additional background on the case — Golan v. Gonzales — can be accessed here, here, and here.

“This appeal presents important questions regarding whether a patent holder’s deceptive conduct before a private standards-determining organization may be condemned under antitrust laws and, if so, what facts must be pled to survive a motion to dismiss.” So begins the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit today in Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.

“Alan Morrison, back in the saddle”: Tony Mauro has this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Schools Await Princeton Donor Ruling”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Colleges around the country are closely watching for a key ruling in a bitter legal battle between Princeton University and a disgruntled alumnus who claims the school misspent the millions his family left the school in 1961.”

“[The defendant] maintains that the district court judge who imposed the sentence should have recused himself after [the defendant] obtained the judge’s home telephone number and left at least one threatening message prior to his sentencing.” Today a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejects that argument, holding that “the district judge reasonably construed [the defendant’s] threatening phone message as an attempt to manipulate the court system which did not warrant his sua sponte recusal.”

According to the decision, the defendant had been convicted “for mailing threatening communications and threatening the President of the United States.”

“For nearly half a century, the CIA has each day sent the President a highly classified summary of the most important and timely intelligence relating to this country’s national defense and foreign policy priorities.” So begins the first paragraph of a decision that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

The opinion’s first paragraph goes on to state (some citations omitted): “We must decide in this case whether two of these reports — known as the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) — from the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). We hold that the CIA has provided ample justification that the disclosure of the two PDBs would reveal protected intelligence sources and methods, and thus these PDBs are protected by FOIA exemption 3 and the National Security Act.”

“D.C. Asks Supreme Court to Back Gun Ban”: Robert Barnes and David Nakamura of The Washington Post provide this news update.

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “D.C. Appeals to Supreme Court on Gun Law” and “Convicted Peeper Sues to Get Porn Back.”

“Ruling On Blog Rant Troubling”: Columnist Rick Green has this op-ed today in The Hartford Courant. The op-ed focuses on a decision that U.S District Judge Mark R. Kravitz of the District of Connecticut issued last Friday. Judge Kravitz’s opinion begins:

Social networking websites and blogs (or web logs) have in recent years become an important part of the lives of young people, and many adults. But as some have come to discover to their chagrin, postings on such sites and blogs are often very public and the statements and information posted can have consequences for the blogger.

Saturday’s issue of The Courant contained an article headlined “Judge Rules On Student’s Slur” reporting on the decision.

“Second Amendment case reaches Court”: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post that begins, “Relying upon strong rhetoric and the argument that access to handguns is a direct threat to peoples’ lives in the Nation’s capital, the District of Columbia government urged the Supreme Court on Tuesday to spare the city’s gun control law from nullification under the Second Amendment.” That blog has posted both the cert. petition and accompanying appendix online.

In re Elevator Antitrust Litigation goes up to the Second Circuit, which affirms the dismissal of that lawsuit: You can access today’s ruling at this link. Only time will tell whether plaintiffs will next seek to have their case ascend to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“At 11th Circuit, What Happens at Oral Argument Stays at Oral Argument: A look at a federal appellate court’s rule denying access to oral argument audiotapes.” Today’s installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com can be accessed here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has redesigned the home page of its web site: You can access the redesigned home page at this link.

“Exacting Donors Reshape College Giving”: The Washington Post contains this front page article today.

“Appeals Court Finds Ugly Implications in City’s Anti-Truck Law; Class, Not Aesthetics, May Be Real Issue, Judges Suggest in Overturning Code”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

My earlier coverage of last month’s ruling of Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal can be accessed here.

“Fighting for Our Handgun Ban”: Today in The Washington Post, Adrian M. Fenty and Linda Singer have an op-ed that begins, “As mayor and attorney general of the District of Columbia, we were deeply disappointed this year when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declared that the District’s longstanding handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. Today we are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision in that case, which we think threatens public safety and is wrong on the law.”

“Control of Dances Is at Issue in Lawsuit”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

“The Wrong Answer in Connecticut”: The New York Times today contains an editorial which argues that “The appeal of a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ law is understandable, but these laws have proven to be blunt instruments that cause more injustice than they prevent.”

“Conscience of a Conservative”: In the Sunday, September 9, 2007 issue of The New York Times Magazine, Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen will have an article that begins, “In the fall of 2003, Jack L. Goldsmith was widely considered one of the brightest stars in the conservative legal firmament. A 40-year-old law professor at the University of Chicago, Goldsmith had established himself, with his friend and fellow law professor John Yoo, as a leading proponent of the view that international standards of human rights should not apply in cases before U.S. courts.”

“Defense for Islamic Charity To Call Witnesses”: Josh Gerstein has this article today in The New York Sun.

The Los Angeles Times on Sunday reported that “Holy Land federal witnesses go uncalled; Prosecutors rely on FBI and Israeli testimony to make their case against the charity; The defense begins Tuesday.”

And last Friday’s edition of The Dallas Morning News reported that “Government rests in Holy Land trial; Defense in terror financing trial to call first witness next week.”

“DNA backlog piles up for FBI; Samples increase by 80,000 in ’06”: Richard Willing has this front page article today in USA Today, along with an article headlined “DNA lag leaves potential for crime; Samples have yet to be analyzed.”

“In Chertoff’s record, shades of politics; His past at Justice may be a hurdle if he’s picked to succeed Alberto Gonzales as attorney general”: David G. Savage and Tom Hamburger will have this article Tuesday in The Los Angeles Times.

“9/11 Lawsuits Will Get Their Day in Court”: This article will appear Tuesday in The New York Times.

“Government opposes release of secret court orders”: Lyle Denniston has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.” You can access the federal government’s brief at this link.

“Gonzales Case Echoes FDR’s AG Problems”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“The confrontation clause and testimony about the results of blood tests to prove that the defendant had committed the offense of driving while impaired”: Back on August 22, 2007, I reported here on an interesting ruling that a divided three-judge Fourth Circuit panel issued that day.

The November 2007 issue of the Tulane Law Review will contain an article by Stephen Aslett addressing this very issue at length. The article is titled “Crawford’s Curious Dictum: Why Testimonial Nonhearsay Implicates the Confrontation Clause” (abstract with links for download).

“Blawg Review #124; Labor Day Special Historical Edition”: Available online here, today at “George’s Employment Blawg.”

“A Labor Fools’ Day Story”: ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg has this post at her “Legalities” blog about the front page story today in The Washington Post focusing on a new book about the Bush presidency. The book reports that Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. had suggested to President Bush that Harriet E. Miers be nominated to fill the vacancy created on the U.S. Supreme Court when Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired.

Jan and I will both be in Atlanta later this week to speak at the Federal Bar Association Annual Meeting and Convention.