“Justice Thomas landed the right job for himself — and America”: Columnist Jim Wooten has this op-ed today in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

“Transcript: Convertino told judge of hospital pictures; Ex-prosecutor said a witness was coming in with photos of Jordan facility, evidence shows.” The Detroit News today contains an article that begins, “Former federal prosecutor Richard Convertino told a judge at a closed-door hearing in 2002 he was obtaining photographs of a hospital in Jordan that he would present as evidence in the trial of four men accused of supporting terrorism, Convertino’s criminal trial in U.S. District Court was told Friday.”

“Mack jury selection nears end of candidates”: The Reno Gazette-Journal today contains an article that begins, “Judge Douglas Herndon brought in the third of four panels of potential jurors in the Darren Mack murder trial on Friday and approved four more people, bringing the number picked so far to 24 as they build toward a final group of 35.”

“Wiretapping Compromise Was Months in the Making”: The New York Times contains this article today.

“FBI works to bolster Al Qaeda cases; A 300-person task force has been gathering evidence for war crimes tribunals for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and 14 others held at Guantanamo Bay; The concern is that information previously obtained through CIA tactics could be inadmissible”: This article will appear Sunday in The Los Angeles Times.

“Catherine Roraback, 87, Influential Lawyer, Dies”: The New York Times today contains an obituary that begins, “Catherine Roraback, a lawyer who pressed the Connecticut case that eventually led the United States Supreme Court to rule that laws banning the use of contraceptives were unconstitutional, a precursor to its Roe v. Wade decision on abortions, died on Wednesday in Salisbury, Conn.”

“A scolding, but no full hearing, in Barnes case”: The Philadelphia Inquirer today contains an article that begins, “A routine court session over the latest attempt to block the Barnes Foundation art collection from leaving Merion for Philadelphia turned to drama yesterday when a lawyer accused the judge of doing too little, too slowly, in the case.”

And The New York Times today contains a news brief titled “Fighting for the Barnes.”

“Ex-Prosecutor Alleges Pentagon Plays Politics; Pressure for ‘Sexy’ Guantanamo Hearings”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“Immunity push for telecom firms might not kill wiretap suits”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “The Bush administration’s proposal to protect telecommunications companies from lawsuits for aiding the government’s electronic surveillance program won’t necessarily scuttle cases pending in San Francisco against the companies, a lawyer for AT&T customers said Friday.”

“Lawsuit against college to be pulled; Decision comes after North Harris allows access to blog about official”: This article appears today in The Houston Chronicle.

This past week was not the first time that this blog has posted online a decision that a federal appellate court claimed to have made publicly available in error: The earlier instance occurred in January 2007, as noted in posts that appeared that month here and here. The decision in question remains accessible online via this blog here (all but page nine) and here (the initially elusive page nine). In that instance, this blog received no communications from the issuing court requesting that the decision be taken off-line, even though Westlaw apparently did agree to remove the decision from its database following a request to do so from the issuing court.

On various occasions, clerks from numerous federal appellate courts — from the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court to the Chief Clerks of Court on various regional appellate courts — have emailed me to ask that the “How Appealing” blog be updated to include a post that would draw the attention of this blog’s readership to important notices posted at those courts’ web sites. Last week was the first instance in this blog’s more than five-year existence that the Chief Clerk of Court (or anyone affiliated with any appellate court, federal or state) ever called on this blog to take down from the internet a decision that the court itself had posted to the internet at an earlier time. And, of course, my reasons for not agreeing to do so appear here and here.

“Doctors appeal ruling on executions; A North Carolina judge had said the state medical board can’t bar members’ involvement”: Henry Weinstein has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Naming Names at Gitmo: How Navy Lt. Cmdr. Matthew Diaz put himself in the middle of the prisoner-detention issue — and went to jail for it.” Tim Golden will have this very interesting article tomorrow in The New York Times Magazine.

Hugh Hewitt interviews Justice Clarence Thomas: The interview took place on Thursday and was the subject of yesterday’s broadcast of Hugh’s radio show. You can access some excerpts of the interview transcript via this post at Hugh’s blog.

The complete transcript of the interview can be accessed here. You can access the audio of the interview online, on-demand in two parts: part one and part two. Hugh’s radio show yesterday concluded with a bonus re-broadcast of an earlier interview that Hugh had conducted with Jeffrey Toobin. You can access that audio via this link.

Two interesting new posts from Law Professor Daniel J. Solove at “Concurring Opinions”: The posts are titled “Who, Exactly, Is a Journalist?” and “The Boy Who Cried ‘National Security’: The Need for Greater Skepticism About Government Secrecy.”

As noted in those posts, a comparison between the unredacted version of the Second Circuit‘s ruling in Higazy v. Templeton, which that federal appellate court initially released over the internet on Thursday only to shortly thereafter pull it offline without any meaningful public explanation, and the redacted version of that same decision issued yesterday can be performed by anyone who wishes to evaluate whether the redacted information should have been treated as confidential in the first place.

And you needn’t feel reluctant to perform this examination. As the first of Dan’s two posts linked above notes, “the Supreme Court held in Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 496 (1975), that ‘[o]nce true information is disclosed in public court documents open to public inspection, the press cannot be sanctioned for publishing it.'”

“Lawsuit Is Reinstated for Man Wrongly Suspected in 9/11”: This article will appear Saturday in The New York Times.

You can access today’s Second Circuit ruling at this link.

“Plainly, a Justice Department Pick of Like Mind”: Adam Liptak will have this news analysis Saturday in The New York Times.

“Claim of Pressure for Closed Guantanamo Trials”: This article will appear Saturday in The New York Times.

Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro reports that “New Study Suggests Veteran Advocates Sway Supreme Court; Research draws controversial connection between growth of the Supreme Court Bar and the Court’s new pro-business tilt.”

An article is headlined “Federal Circuit: Legal-Mal Suits With Patent Infringement Elements Belong in Federal Court.” My earlier coverage appears at this link.

An article reports that “Fla. High Court Rules Those Who Disclose HIV Results Can Be Sued for Damages.” You can access Thursday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Florida at this link.

In other news from Florida, “Judge Defends Sealing of Electronically Filed Porn Images; Litigation by longtime crusader against violent video games prompts judge’s administrative order.”

And the brand new installment of my “On Appeal” column is headlined “Suing to Abolish Unpublished Appellate Court Rulings.”

“‘Constitutional originalist’ speaks out at VU campus”: The Post-Tribune of Gary, Indiana today contains an article that begins, “Standing in the pulpit of the Chapel of the Resurrection in Valparaiso, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia preached his judicial philosophy of originalism Thursday.”

And The Times of Munster, Indiana reports today that “Scalia speaks at VU.”

Previously, Valparaiso University School of Law issued news releases titled “Supreme Court Justice Scalia to give public lecture” and “Law students present arguments to Supreme Court Justice Scalia.”

“20 Mack jurors picked, 15 to go”: The Reno Gazette-Journal today contains an article that begins, “Continuing at a snail’s pace, defense attorneys and prosecutors questioned another 14 people on Thursday and selected five to potentially serve as jurors in the Darren Mack murder case.”

And later today, the newspaper posted online an update headlined “Jury selection continues in Mack case.”

“NY court: Egyptian student can sue FBI agent over 9/11 detention.” The Associated Press provides this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.

“Mukasey Withholds Opinion on Waterboarding”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“Howard Bashman, journalist”: Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

Update: At the “LawBeat” blog, Mark Obbie offers these thoughts. And Carolyn Elefant has this related post at “Legal Blog Watch.

The few, the proud, the watchers of U.S. Supreme Court TV: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has an article headlined “Alito: Few Would Watch Supreme Court TV.”

I expressed some thoughts on this issue in the April 17, 2006 installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com, headlined “Should Congress Mandate Supreme Court TV? Will original understanding go high-definition?”

“More lawyers join criticism of Keller; Latest complaint against judge in death row case also includes signatures of other judges”: The Houston Chronicle today contains an article that begins, “Joining a swelling tide of criticism, 130 attorneys from Harris County have filed a judicial conduct complaint condemning the actions of Judge Sharon Keller, who presides over the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The latest complaint against Keller, filed late Wednesday by the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association, also was signed by state District Judge Susan Criss of Galveston, retired state District Judge Jay W. Burnett and six regular citizens.”

And on Tuesday of this week, The Houston Chronicle contained an article headlined “Views divided on judge in dispute over executed man; Keller is seen either as a solid jurist or an ideologue.”

“Should former BP chief testify? Court to decide if ‘Lord John’ can be questioned in Texas City explosion cases.” Chuck Lindell has this article today in The Austin American-Statesman.

And The Houston Chronicle today contains an article headlined “Court hears arguments on BP blast testimony” that begins, “A battle over whether former BP CEO John Browne should be forced to testify in a deposition about the deadly 2005 explosion at the company’s Texas City refinery reached the state Supreme Court on Thursday.”

“Hawaiians Argue Over Ancestry”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “In Hawaii, where blood and ancestry matter as in no other state, a legal challenge is posing this question: Who is sufficiently Hawaiian? In Hawaii, ancestry is more than just a matter of ethnic pride. Under a program created by Congress in 1921, Native Hawaiians with strong bloodlines can get land for a home for $1 a year. Those with more mixed ancestry still receive many other benefits, including low-interest loans and admission for their children to the richly endowed and highly regarded Kamehameha Schools.”

“More Thoughts on Death Penalty Stays”: Tom Goldstein has this interesting follow-up post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

“A Journalist? Says Who?” Matthew Felling has this post about me today at the CBS News blog “Public Eye.”

Second Circuit reinstates in part a lawsuit challenging as preempted by federal law Connecticut’s efforts to make the gift card industry more consumer-friendly: You can access today’s ruling at this link.

As expected, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has today issued a revised version of its decision in Higazy v. Templeton: On page seven, today’s version of the opinion states, “This opinion has been redacted because portions of the record are under seal. For the purposes of the summary judgment motion, Templeton did not contest that Higazy’s statements were coerced.” The version of the opinion that the Second Circuit posted online yesterday and then withdrew did not contain those redactions.

“On Day 2, Democrats See Change In Mukasey; Nominee Endorses President’s Positions”: The Washington Post contains this front page article today.

The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Mukasey hearing turns prickly; Widely praised a day earlier, the Justice nominee angers Democrats with remarks on a torture and executive power.”

The New York Times reports that “Senators Clash With Nominee About Torture.”

And McClatchy Newspapers report that “Mukasey won’t rule out expansive action in war on terror.”

“Senate Panel Approves New Surveillance Bill; Immunity for Telecom Companies May Raise Concerns”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

The New York Times reports today that “Panel Approves Eavesdropping Compromise.”

And The Los Angeles Times reports that “Senate panel OKs spying legislation; The measure, approved 13-2, is a compromise regarding the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program.”

“Tribune deal is mired in FCC rift over cross-ownership rules”: Jim Puzzanghera has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.