“Mack prosecutors resume testimony today in Vegas”: The Reno Gazette-Journal today contains an article that begins, “After a three-day weekend to observe Nevada Day, prosecutors will resume today trying to prove that Reno businessman Darren Mack is guilty in the fatal stabbing of his wife shooting of the judge who was handling their contentious divorce.”

That newspaper’s “Darren Mack Blog” provides additional updates from the trial.

“Is child-porn law too broad? US Supreme Court takes up the case of a man convicted of trying to distribute make-believe porn.” Warren Richey will have this article Tuesday in The Christian Science Monitor.

“Judge won’t block ‘moment of silence'”: The Chicago Tribune provides a news update that begins, “Despite signaling he has concerns about a new state law mandating a moment of silence in Illinois public schools, a federal judge today declined to issue a temporary restraining order that would have prevented a period of reflection at Buffalo Grove High School beginning Tuesday.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Court Allows Ill. Moment of Silence.”

“Exxon Asks Supreme Court to Limit $2.5M Spill Tab; Oil giant argues that punitive damage award for the Valdez disaster is excessive”: law.com’s Tony Mauro provides this report.

At CNN.com, Bill Mears reports that “Supreme Court to review Exxon Valdez award; The high court will determine if the $2.5 billion in punitive damages owed for the 1989 Alaska oil spill is excessive.”

And today’s broadcast of the public radio program “Here & Now” included an audio segment featuring Lyle Denniston entitled “Supreme Court and Exxon Dispute” (RealPlayer required)

Access online the transcripts of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments: By clicking on the following links, you can access the transcripts of oral argument in Klein & Co. Futures v. Board of Trade of City of New York, No. 06-1265, and Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 06-9130.

On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Day to Day“: The broadcast included audio segments entitled “Future of Lethal Injection in Question” (featuring Dahlia Lithwick) and “Controversial Suicide Law Marks 10 Years.” RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Supreme Court may cut Exxon Valdez damages”: Joan Biskupic of USA Today provides this news update.

And The Washington Post provides a news update headlined “Supreme Court to Hear Exxon Valdez Case.”

“Lawyer Pleads Guilty in Kickback Case”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “William Lerach, a former partner at a prestigious New York law firm, pleaded guilty Monday to conspiracy for his role in a scheme to bribe people to become plaintiffs in lucrative class-action lawsuits.”

“Federal courts are not comprised of philosopher-kings or legislative aides, and the Constitution forbids us from pontificating about abstractions in the law or merely giving advice about the potential legal deficiencies of a law or policy when no ongoing controversy exists with respect to that law or policy.” So writes Fourth Circuit Chief Judge Karen J. Williams, on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of that court, in dismissing as moot a South Carolina state prison inmate’s First Amendment challenge to a policy that prevents inmates in the maximum security unit from receiving publications via mail.

As today’s ruling explains, because the inmate was released back into the general prison population from the maximum security unit over two years ago, and because the inmate “controls his own fate so far as the prospects for his return to the MSU are concerned,” the panel today dismisses the inmate’s appeal as moot.

“The Mukasey Ultimatum: The Dems do have a way to make the attorney general nominee talk about waterboarding.” Benjamin Wittes has this essay online today at The New Republic.

“Ex-convict appeals to inmates’ hopes for freedom; Company says cases can be won on a legal technicality”: Chuck Lindell had this article yesterday in The Austin American-Statesman.

“Muslim Says Copies of Quran Confiscated”: Pete Yost of The Associated Press has an article that begins, “The Bush administration urged the Supreme Court on Monday to bar a Muslim inmate from suing prison officials who allegedly confiscated two copies of his Quran and prayer rug. The inmate should be limited to filing an administrative complaint as thousands of other prisoners do every year for a variety of allegations, a Justice Department lawyer told the court.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News is reporting: He has articles headlined “Exxon Gets Court Review of $2.5 Billion Valdez Award” and “Elizabeth Taylor Can Keep van Gogh Work as Court Rejects Appeal.”

James Vicini of Reuters is reporting: He has articles headlined “Supreme court to decide Exxon Mobil Valdez appeal“; “US court rejects ex-trader’s 7-year contempt case“; and “Court lets Liz Taylor keep van Gogh painting.”

“Rocky Mountain High”: CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen, author of the “Bench Conference” blog hosted by washingtonpost.com, lives in Denver and roots for the Boston Red Sox. That apparently gives him at least two reasons to gloat today at the expense of a certain Philadelphia Phillies fan. On a brighter note, there are now only three and a half months till pitchers and catchers report for spring training.

“Man freed in teen sex case says no ‘negative energy’ toward DA”: CNN.com provides this report.

The Associated Press is reporting: An article headlined “Court Declines Case Involving Painting” begins, “The Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider a dispute involving actress Elizabeth Taylor over ownership of a Vincent van Gogh painting. The painting is claimed by descendants of a Jewish woman who fled Nazi Germany.”

And an article headlined “Court Declines Alabama Murder Case” begins, “The Supreme Court on Monday declined to review a triple-murder case in which the trial prosecutor stood up in court, clapped his hands several times and said ‘bravo’ after the accused killer finished testifying in his own defense.”

Senior Second Circuit Judge Thomas J. Meskill has died: The Associated Press reports that “Former Gov. Thomas Meskill Dies.”

Judge Meskill was continuing to perform the work of his court until the end, as this ruling issued today demonstrates.

Is that a one-pound package of powder cocaine in your pants or are you just glad to see me? In a decision issued today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirms the suppression of a one-pound package of powder cocaine discovered during the pat-down search of a car passenger. Today’s ruling holds that a pat-down search of the passenger was unlawful because the prosecution had failed to show that the police officer had a reasonable suspicion that the passenger was armed and dangerous before conducting the search.

U.S. Supreme Court can’t hear case in which seven of that Court’s nine Justices are recused: The Order List that the Supreme Court of the United States issued today contains the following order at the bottom of page one:

Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U.S.C. §1, and since a majority of the qualified Justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment is affirmed under 28 U.S.C. §2109, which provides that under these circumstances the Court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided Court. Justice Stevens, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Souter, Justice Thomas, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

You can learn a little more about the case in this decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissing the action in October 2006. Ironically, the current lawsuit alleged that these Justices should have recused from deciding the plaintiff’s earlier lawsuit. As a result of their recusal from deciding this lawsuit, he again loses.

“Supreme Court to Hear Exxon Valdez Case”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press provides this report.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court to rule on Exxon Valdez verdict.” That blog has posted online the petition for writ of certiorari, the brief in opposition, and the petitioner’s reply brief. You can access amicus briefs filed at the cert. stage via this link (scroll down to seventh case).

My earlier coverage of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in this case can be accessed here, while I collected press coverage of that ruling in this post.

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court Order List, which can be accessed here, indicates that Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. has recused himself from this case.

“Advocacy Matters”: Guest-blogger Richard Lazarus has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” about his new paper “Advocacy Matters Before and Within the Supreme Court: Transforming the Court By Transforming the Bar” (abstract with links for download).

“Refusing to Accept Defeat as the Result on Appeal”: You can access today’s installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com at this link.

“Sperm donor needed pact, high court rules”: Saturday’s edition of The Topeka Capital-Journal contained an article that begins, “The Kansas Supreme Court ruled Friday that a sperm donor who wants to have parental rights with any subsequent children must have a written agreement with the mother. The 4-2 decision upholding constitutionality of Kansas’ current donor law was the first of its kind in the nation.”

And The Kansas City Star reported on Saturday that “Kansas high court rules against sperm donor.”

You can access Friday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Kansas at this link.

“High court overturns $30 million award in Walter Hollins case”: Friday’s issue of The Cleveland Plain Dealer contained an article that begins, “Walter Hollins of Cleveland, brain-damaged since birth 20 years ago, must return to court with a new lawyer if he hopes to ever be compensated for his injuries. The Ohio Supreme Court on Thursday threw out the $30 million verdict that Hollins won in 2004, blaming his attorney, Geoffrey Fieger of Southfield, Mich., for courtroom misconduct that critically tainted the outcome. The verdict was the state’s largest medical malpractice award ever. But it was a verdict influenced by passion and tainted by Fieger’s theatrics and inappropriate behavior, Justice Terrance O’Donnell wrote in the court’s 6-1 opinion.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Ohio court tosses $30M verdict over Fieger antics.”

You can access last week’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Ohio at this link.

“Appellate judge called ‘out of control'”: Today’s edition of The San Antonio Express-News contains an article that begins, “Sharon Keller won election to Texas’ highest criminal court 13 years ago with a promise to be a staunch supporter of the death penalty and a ‘pro-prosecution’ judge.”

“Floridians head back to court for Big Tobacco fight”: This article appears today in The Palm Beach Post.

“Exxon asks high court to void Valdez spill damages; Justices may say today whether they’ll hear case involving jury’s $2.5 billion award”: Patty Reinert has this article today in The Houston Chronicle.

And The Anchorage Daily News reported on Saturday that “Exxon’s run of appeals could end Monday; Supreme Court will decide if it will take the case.”

“Enforcing flag law is a long shot”: The Omaha World-Herald today contains an article that begins, “Nebraska’s law prohibiting flag desecration is the legal equivalent of a butter churn or slide rule: a device that has outlived its usefulness, according to two scholars and a lawyer seeking to declare the law void.”

Today’s newspaper also contains related articles headlined “Nebraskans’ beer label brought flag fracas to head” and “Defender adds touch of irony.”

“ABA seeks execution moratorium; Study of states finds ‘deeply flawed’ process, inequities”: The Chicago Tribune contains this article today.

“Checking Child Pornography: The Supreme Court considers a pandering case.” This editorial appears today in The Washington Post.

“Good judges: Voters should retain the best and let one go.” Today’s edition of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette contains an editorial that begins, “Judicial retention elections, until quite recently, have been low-key and easily overlooked. Not this year, not after what happened in 2005. That’s when angry voters lashed out at the only statewide candidates on the ballot and threw Supreme Court Justice Russell Nigro off the bench. They nearly did the same to Justice Sandra Schultz Newman, who was also on the ballot; she later resigned. That stunning election was a response to a middle-of-the-night pay raise enacted, then rescinded, by the Legislature and to a subsequent state Supreme Court ruling that upheld the increases for judges.”

The Philadelphia Inquirer today contains an editorial entitled “For Pa. Supreme Court: Todd and McCaffery.”

The Allentown Morning Call contains an editorial entitled “These candidates for appellate courts offer chance to restore their esteem.”

And yesterday’s issue of The Harrisburg Patriot-News contained an editorial entitled “Todd, Lally-Green deserve election to the Supreme Court.”

“Muslim Says Copies of Quran Confiscated”: Pete Yost of The Associated Press has an article that begins, “A Muslim inmate says prisoners around the country are regularly mistreated by their jailers because of religious faith. The Supreme Court is considering his case Monday. The issue in the inmate’s lawsuit is whether he can sue prison officials for allegedly confiscating two copies of his Quran and his prayer rug.”

“The Wiretap This Time”: Studs Terkel has this op-ed today in The New York Times.

“Kent, his accuser in same building”: Saturday’s edition of The Galveston County Daily News contained an article that begins, “The chief judge of the Southern District of Texas on Friday said he didn’t know when — or whether — Galveston would get a permanent federal judge. Meanwhile, it was hard to learn the reason why suspended U.S. District Judge Samuel B. Kent was removed Thursday as Galveston’s permanent judge. Some speculated it could be an attempt to inconvenience the judge and get him to resign. Others said it might be an attempt to avoid the appearance that some attorneys would receive favored treatment by filing cases in Galveston. Still others said it might be an attempt to retaliate against a court employee who transferred from Galveston after she made a sexual harassment complaint against the judge. Once he resumes hearing cases in January, Kent will be based primarily in Houston — in the same building with his accuser.”

Friday’s newspaper reported that “Galveston to keep court after Kent’s transfer.”

And in yesterday’s newspaper, columnist Heber Taylor had an op-ed entitled “Moving Kent a confusing and weak response.”