Jennifer Aniston in state prison in Wisconsin? No, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit holds today. At issue in today’s decision, written by Circuit Judge Terence T. Evans, is the constitutionality of a Wisconsin Department of Corrections policy that prevents inmates from possessing individual, commercially published photographs.

“Fluke? Captive granted asylum interview.” Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald provides a news update from Guantanamo that begins, “In a first, a captive held here in the war on terrorism has sufficiently filled out an asylum application to get an appointment with the Department of Homeland Security. There’s only one problem: Algerian-born Ahmed Belbacha, 39, will be hard-pressed to make it to Washington for his interview because of his status as a detainee inside Camp Delta.”

“Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Boumediene v. Bush & Al Odah v. United States.” Access the audio of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in the Guantanamo detainee cases on demand from C-SPAN, by clicking here (RealPlayer required).

“Court Appears Split on Rights of Guantanamo Detainees”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post provides this news update.

“Can constitutional issues be finessed?” Lyle Denniston has this oral argument report at “SCOTUSblog.”

As the reward for announcing the first signed opinion of the new Term, we shall represent the first letter of your last name as “J” instead of “G”: Because it took the U.S. Supreme Court seemingly forever yesterday to post its opinions to that Court’s own web site, few may have noticed that this page on the Court’s web site attributes the decision in Logan v. United States, No. 06-6911, to a Justice whose last name begins with a J.

I am reliably assured, however, that neither Justice Robert H. Jackson, nor Justice Howell Edmunds Jackson, nor Justice William Johnson, Jr., nor Justice Thomas Johnson, nor Chief Justice John Jay delivered the opinion. No, as the opinion itself reveals, the author of the decision was Justice Ruth Bader Jinsburg (sic).

Update: As was bound to happen, the Court has corrected this error. You can view the original uncorrected page by clicking here.

“Supreme Court weighs Guantanamo hearings”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Guantanamo Inmate Rights Divide U.S. Supreme Court Justices.”

Reuters reports that “High court probes Guantanamo prisoners’ rights.”

And some thoughts from Joan Biskupic appear in this USA Today blog post.

“Thoughts on the Oral Argument in Boumediene v. Bush”: Orin Kerr has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Marty Lederman has a post titled “Quick Reactions to Boumediene Oral Argument.”

And “How Appealing” reader Alan R. Kabat emails:

Arrived at the Supreme Court at around 6:40 am, there were already at least 15 people ahead of me. This time, somebody had started a sign-up sheet which was invaluable in preventing line-skippers once we were inside the building – at 7:35. There were probably over 100 attorneys behind me in the bar members list. I couldn’t tell how many people had camped out overnight for the public line, but given the snow storm, probably most of the public waited until early morning to come. At 9:05 we were inside the SCT chambers.

Since there was only 1 argument today, there was only 1 row of counsel tables, which freed up additional space for another 20 or so chairs for the members of the bar. I don’t know if this scheduling was deliberate, but it did help provide more access to the court room.

Although I did not recognize anyone sitting the row that is ordinarily reserved for Members of Congress, I did see, to my surprise, Senior District Judge Joyce Hens Green in the row behind the congressional row. She, along with District Judge Richard Leon, had handled the two Guantanamo cases that are on appeal today. By way of comparison, I was reliably informed that during the Padilla oral arguments several years ago, then-Judge Mukasey (who originally had that case) was at the SCT, but as I did not then know what he looked like, I cannot verify that. Anyway, I did not see AG Mukasey today, and someone else was sitting in the AG’s chair.

Argument started promptly at 10:02. Waxman (compared with Clement) was able to say a lot more, with fewer interruptions. He emphasized that the DTA review process does not provide an adequate substitute for habeas. CJ Roberts had the first two questions, about the scope of habeas, Waxman’s response was that the detainees need a reasonable opportunity to counter the govt evidence. CJ asked is our judgment dependent on whether or not the procedures are adequate (i.e. is that the threshold issue for the SCT). Ginsburg then jumped in with several questions to counter the CJ, who then asked does habeas turn on where the person is held or captured, i.e., battlefield vs. Guantanamo.

At 10:10, Scalia jumps in, asking whether the new habeas statute makes clear what wasn’t under the old regime, i.e., aliens in Gitmo are in territory not under sovereign control, so that Rasul no longer applies? Other cases, Scalia says, were unambiguously on USA territory. CJ asks if an act of Congress says Gitmo base is not part of USA for the new statute, does that reject Waxman’s argument (so no need to consider anything else). The other justices start weighing in at this point. Alito ask if merely bringing someone here was sufficient for habeas. CJ asks if the court should defer to political branches in determining the scope of sovereignty. Scalia notes that during WWI, there were over 400k German prisoners of war in this country, yet nobody ever thought that they had any habeas right, even though some were civilians, not uniformed soldiers.

10:23, Kennedy asks his first question, about the scope of DTA — Waxman’s quick, lengthy response that DTA has no prospect that any merits determination will ever be conducted, and that the record on review, either now or at the merits stage is too limited. He emphasizes the need for a hearing to introduce evidence to counter govt evidence, particularly the ex parte and in camera submissions. “Time for experimentation is over,” let’s go back to “experienced district judges” to handle these detainees. Breyer asks about Lord Masefield having issued a similar writ, which discussed sovereignty issues; Waxman noted that in 1777 and 1783 (?) habeas was extended to people on the high seas, even though they were not in any one country’s territory.

Scalia, “I’m still waiting for a single case” in which habeas was granted to aliens not on US soil, etc.

10:38, SG Clement takes over — as usual, he has no notes, although he did bring up a sheet with an enlarged version of a statute (?). Souter quickly asks the first questions, about how due process fits in, Breyer asks for the basis for indefinite detention without charging, how can that be equivalent of habeas. Clement stresses need for geographical and temporal limits to scope of habeas. Stevens asks about how people who are captured, but not uniformed, could be treated under the law of war, since they could not be charged with war crimes, unlike uniformed troops, also asks about prisoners who were turned in by bounty hunters as opposed to actually captured in combat. Breyer emphasizes that habeas is supposed to be speedy, not 6 years. Clement then fumbles as to what should happen at the D.C. Circuit, under the statutory regime, and this is where I could tell that he seemed to lose Kennedy, who became disgusted with Clements’ response. Clement did admit that “we don’t have good answers as to what habeas looks like in context of enemy combatants.”

11:18, Waxman gets 5 minute rebuttal that seemed to last 10. Emphasizes that DTA review is not equivalent of habeas, need for detainee to be able to prove threshold issue, “I am not a combatant,” and DTA review will never address merits of the issues. DC Circuit review of the record needs to have evidence that is accurate, but the govt evidence includes hearsay, as well as ex parte, in camera submissions that cannot be rebutted, so issue of reliability of evidence. Waxman then notes that Judge Green’s unredacted opinion revealed the severe inadequacies of the due process review — he starts discussing what came out with respect to Murat Kurnaz, who was subsequently released (this was in the Wash Post this morning!). Waxman notes that this new evidence would never have been considered in a DTA review, even though it is directly relevant to the issue of “I am not a combatant.”

11:25, case submitted.

I predict one opinion by either Souter or Ginsburg, the other opinion by CJ Roberts, with Kennedy’s vote up in the air. Scalia may do a separate opinion with a historical exegesis on the scope of habeas as applied to aliens and those not on sovereign territory.

Thanks much, Alan, for that thorough report!

“Judge Alex Kozinski Takes Ninth Circuit Helm; New Chief Shares Spotlight with Colleagues, Staff”: The Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this news release yesterday.

“The Evil at GTMO”: ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg has this post today at her “Legalities” blog.

C-SPAN3 has just begun to broadcast this morning’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in the Guantanamo detainee cases: You can access online the live C-SPAN3 video feed in both RealPlayer and Windows Media Player formats (click on those links to launch the live feed). The oral argument apparently lasted for one hour and twenty minutes.

“U. of Colorado Settles Sex-Assault Suit”: The Associated Press provides this report.

The article notes that “in September the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the lawsuit, ruling there was evidence the alleged assaults were caused by the school’s failure to adequately supervise players.” My earlier coverage of that Tenth Circuit ruling can be accessed here.

In other coverage, The Denver Post provides a news update headlined “CU settles lawsuit sparked by alleged football party rape.”

And The Boulder Daily Camera provides a news update headlined “CU settles Lisa Simpson lawsuit for $2.5 million; University president Hank Brown signed off on settlement.” That newspaper has also posted online in two parts the plaintiff’s deposition transcript (part one; part two).

“Chief Justice Ralph Cappy to Join Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney”: That law firm issued this news release today.

Chief Justice Cappy will not be the first former appellate group to head that law firm’s appellate group. Former Third Circuit Judge Timothy K. Lewis previously headed the appellate group at Buchanan Ingersoll, PC. And, for the record, though I’m not a former appellate judge, I too chaired Buchanan Ingersoll’s appellate group (see second item) after Judge Lewis but before Chief Justice Cappy.

“Supreme Court Hearing Guantanamo Cases”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press provides this updated report.

“Supreme Court Mulls Rights of Guantanamo Suspects”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“Left Behind? Ossining, New York, was at the forefront of school integration; But as American law and public opinion turn against race-based programs, can the town continue to use racial targeting to close the achievement gap?” Dana Goldstein has this article online today at The American Prospect.

How to access online the first play-back of the audio of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in the Guantanamo detainee cases: At C-SPAN‘s request, the Court has agreed to make available same-day audio of today’s oral argument in the Guantanamo detainee cases.

C-SPAN anticipates that its first play-back of the audio will air on the C-SPAN3 network starting at 11:15 a.m. eastern time. The actual start time, of course, will depend on whether the oral argument is allowed to continue past the one hour allotted time and how quickly the Court makes the audio available for broadcast.

You can access online the live C-SPAN3 video feed in both RealPlayer and Windows Media Player formats (click on those links to launch the live feed).

“Hawaii lawyer opens bakery shop for dogs”: The Honolulu Advertiser today contains an article that begins, “What does a local girl do after graduating from Punahou, UC-Berkeley and then the University of Hawai’i law school? She leaves her job at a big law firm and opens a bakery that caters to dogs, of course.”

“Precursor of the Constitution Goes on Display in Queens”: This article appears today in The New York Times. Perhaps Ann Althouse, now in neighboring Brooklyn, will pay the document a visit and provide some additional photos.

“Grand jury to probe abortion-clinic practices”: The Washington Times today contains an article that begins, “An unprecedented investigation into abortion-clinic practices will commence soon in Kansas now that the state Supreme Court has cleared the way for a grand jury with subpoena powers to be convened.”

“Murphy named to Court of Appeals; Court of Special Appeals chief judge known for experience, moderation”: The Baltimore Sun today contains an article that begins, “Gov. Martin O’Malley nominated appellate Judge Joseph F. Murphy Jr. to Maryland’s Court of Appeals yesterday, using his first opportunity to make over the state’s highest court by choosing a jurist known for his depth of experience and moderate temperament.”

And The Washington Post reports today that “Appellate Judge Picked for State’s Top Court.”

“Death row inmate’s sentence upheld; The 9th Circuit rejects arguments that Kevin Cooper was framed in the 1983 murders of four people in Chino Hills”: Henry Weinstein has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

The Press-Enterprise of Riverside, California reports today that “Appeals panel upholds Kevin Cooper’s conviction in Chino Hills killings in 1983.”

And The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin of Chino, California reports that “Cooper’s appeal fails; Judges reject convicted killer’s claims.”

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

“High court hears Medtronic case; Justices asked hard questions in a lawsuit pitting the Minnesota medical device maker against the family of a New York patient”: This article appears today in The Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Today in Financial Times, Patti Waldmeir reports that “Business in court tussle on safety regulation.”

And Reuters reports that “US justices weigh medical-device makers’ liability.”

“Detainees challenge civil, military justice; President Bush’s evolving enemy combatant policy is playing out in radically different venues”: Carol Rosenberg has this article today in The Miami Herald.

Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Justices Weigh Courts’ Role in Detainee Cases.” The newspaper also contains a front page article headlined “Evidence Of Innocence Rejected at Guantanamo.”

In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin has an article headlined “Grappling With Guantanamo: Supreme Court’s Detainee-Rights Ruling Could Affect Bush Legacy.”

At ABCNews.com, Ariane de Vogue reports that “Detainees’ Case Heads to Supreme Court; Justices to Weigh National Security Interests, Guantanamo Captives’ Rights.”

Reuters reports that “Guantanamo prisoners get day in high court.”

BBC News reports that “Legal battle on Guantanamo looms; The US Supreme Court is set to hold a hearing in two cases that are being seen as a legal showdown over the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba.” And a related item is headlined “Profiles: Odah and Boumediene.”

The Harvard Crimson reports that “Students Stage Protest Kidnappings.”

The New York Times contains an editorial entitled “A Key Moment for Justice.”

The Los Angeles Times contains an editorial entitled “Gitmo inmates deserve protection: The Supreme Court should again reject an effort to deny alleged enemy combatants held at Guantanamo the protection of U.S. law.”

And in The Austin American-Statesman, David Currie, Kari Erickson, Ariel Juarez and Anh-Thu Nguyen have an op-ed entitled “U.S. Supreme Court should support the foundation of our democracy.”

“Supreme Court casts doubts on Jeff death row trial; Simpson reference, jury picks questioned”: This article appears today in The Times-Picayune of New Orleans.

Today in The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse reports that “Supreme Court Reconsiders Pivotal Louisiana Case on Racial Selection of Juries.”

In The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Court Hears La. Jury Bias Case; Prosecutor in ’95 Trial Referenced O.J. Simpson, Excluded Blacks.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “High court considers play of race card; At issue is a prosecutor who worked to exclude African Americans from a jury deciding the fate of a black defendant.”

And Joan Biskupic of USA Today reports that “High court mulls racial bias in juror selection.”

“Atheist has another go at banning pledge”: Howard Mintz has this article today in The San Jose Mercury News.

Today in The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein reports that “God on Docket — Yet Again — in Coast Court.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Faith-Based Currency.”

And The Washington Times reports that “Appeals court considers ‘God’ in Pledge.”

Once the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit posts online the audio files of yesterday’s oral arguments in these two appeals, I will link to them.

“What’s at Stake in the Latest Guantanamo Bay Case?” Michael C. Dorf has this essay online today at FindLaw.

Available online from law.com: An article reports that “Newdow’s Pledge Arguments Get New Recital Before 9th Circuit.”

And in other news, “New York State Denied Authority Over National Banks.” My earlier coverage of today’s Second Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Supreme Court casts doubts on Jeff death row trial”: The Times-Picayune of New Orleans provides a news update that begins, “Some U.S. Supreme Court justices reacted with skepticism to a Jefferson Parish prosecutor’s argument Tuesday that all five black members of a jury pool were disqualified from a 1996 murder trial for nonracial reasons and that the prosecution’s reference to the acquittal of O.J. Simpson wasn’t designed to incite the all-white jury to impose the death penalty.”

“Supreme Court Hears Medical Device Case”: Linda Greenhouse will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.

“Gitmo returns to high court; Detainees seek right to challenge status”: James Oliphant will have this article Wednesday in The Chicago Tribune.

Wednesday in The Austin American-Statesman, Chuck Lindell will report that “UT students take part in high court debate; Law school clinic helps develop Guantanamo detainee arguments.”

BBC News provides a report headlined “Supreme Court showdown on detainees.”

Mother Jones provides an article headlined “From Sarajevo to Guantanamo: The Strange Case of the Algerian Six.”

And The Washington Post on Wednesday will contain an editorial entitled “Their Day in Court: Guantanamo lawyers make the case for a tenet of American law.”

“Senate Judiciary Dems push contempt motion”: The Hill on Wednesday will contain an article that begins, “Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats are pushing forward with a resolution holding the White House in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with their subpoenas for information and testimony related to the firings of several U.S. attorneys.”

“Guantanamo headache faces next president; Democrats would shut detention site, but detainees remain a problem”: Tom Curry, national affairs writer for MSNBC, provides this report.

“Death row inmate’s sentence upheld; The 9th Circuit rejects arguments that Kevin Cooper was framed in the brutal murders of four people in Chino Hills”: Henry Weinstein of The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.

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

“Federal Court Hears Pledge, Motto Cases”: The Associated Press provides this report.