Bill Rankin of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is reporting: In Tuesday’s newspaper, he will have articles headlined “Judge: It’s senseless to banish man to one county; State Supreme Court questions sentence given to Gregory Mac Terry” and “Court: Prison may have wrongly opened inmate Al-Amin’s mail.”

You can access at this link today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in the Al-Amin case.

Available online from law.com: An article reports that “Ga. Supreme Court Wrestles With Case of Banishment; In its brief, state concedes judge may have gone too far in imposing banishment from all but one county as parole condition.”

And in other news, “Stanford Professor Records 9th Circuit’s Oral History.”

“Justices Weigh Injection Issue for Death Row”: Linda Greenhouse will have this article Tuesday in The New York Times.

And Tuesday in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Lethal-Injection Ruling May Have to Wait; Justices Question Whether Kentucky Case Is Enough to End Three-Drug Protocol.”

“Killing Me Softly: The Supreme Court ponders whether to pull the plug on lethal injection.” Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

“Supreme Court hears debate over execution methods”: Michael Doyle and Halimah Abdullah of McClatchy Newspapers provide this report.

“Justices Weigh Legality of Lethal Drug Cocktail”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“More states try to model N.Y.’s passenger bill of rights; Airlines are resisting talk of a passenger bill of rights, saying such regulation is the purview of US government”: This article will appear Tuesday in The Christian Science Monitor.

“High Court Skeptical Over Lethal Injection Challenge”: law.com’s Tony Mauro provides this report.

Access online the transcripts of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments: The Court has posted online the transcripts of today’s oral arguments in Baze v. Rees, No. 07-5439, and Dada v. Mukasey, No. 06-1181.

“High Court Divided Over Lethal Injection”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post provides this news update.

“By One Standard, Republican Domination of Federal Appellate Courts Was Short-Lived”: You can access at this link today’s installment of my “On Appeal” essay for law.com.

“Supreme Court Hears Lethal Injection Case”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Dahlia Lithwick appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Day to Day.”

The Associated Press is reporting: An article reports that “Court Revives No Child Left Behind Suit.” My earlier coverage of today’s Sixth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

And in other news, “Wis. Jury Hears Dead Wife’s Letter” and “Scotsman Wins Release From Ohio Jail.”

“Insurance Groups Seek To Sue Saudi Arabia, Others for Attacks”: Today in The New York Sun, Joseph Goldstein has an article that begins, “Whether Saudi Arabia and several members of its royal family can be sued over the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks will be the topic of arguments this month before a federal appeals court in Manhattan.”

“No Fourth Amendment Protection in E-Mail Addresses, IP Addresses, Ninth Circuit Holds”: Back on July 6, 2007, Orin Kerr had this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” about a ruling that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued that day.

Today, the same Ninth Circuit panel issued an order containing some rather detailed amendments to that earlier decision.

“Justices won’t hear Teck Cominco pollution case”: James Vicini of Reuters provides a report that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal by the Canadian mining company Teck Cominco Ltd of a ruling that an American environmental law applied to a foreign company when some of its pollution reaches U.S. territory.”

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Top U.S. Court Won’t Shield Foreigners From Pollution Suits.”

“Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Baze v. Rees.” C-SPAN has made available for online access the audio of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in the case involving the constitutionality of the three-drug protocol used for lethal injections by States with the death penalty. You can access the audio by clicking here (RealPlayer required).

“High court takes skeptical view of lethal injection challenge”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Court Divided Over Lethal Injection Case.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Justices Suggest They Won’t Bar Lethal Injections Now.”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Orin Kerr has a post titled “Oral Argument in Baze v. Rees.”

“This lawsuit, a simple tort case, is in its tenth year. It is high time the district judge, who has presided over it from the beginning, grabbed it by the neck, gave it a good shake, and placed it on the path to a speedy decision.” So concludes an opinion that Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner issued today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

“Lethal injection goes before Supreme Court”: Bill Mears of CNN.com provides this report.

Lyle Denniston of “SCOTUSblog” is reporting: He now has posts up titled “Focus on the mechanics of execution” and “Court: No ban on lawyering by telephone.”

Access online the two per curiam opinions that the U.S. Supreme Court issued today: The opinions issued in Arave v. Hoffman, No. 07-110, and in Wright v. Van Patten, No. 07-212.

In coverage of these decisions, The Associated Press reports that “Court Rules in Speakerphone Dispute” and “Scotus Nixes Fight Over Plea Deal.”

At 11:15 a.m. eastern time this morning, C-SPAN2 plans to broadcast the audio of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Baze v. Rees regarding the constitutionality of the lethal injection drugs to execute death row prisoners: You can access C-SPAN2 online using either RealPlayer or Windows Media Player.

Divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addresses whether States must comply with the requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 regardless of any federal-funding shortfall: The majority in today’s decision reverses the dismissal at the pleadings stage of a lawsuit that school districts and education associations brought seeking a declaratory judgment that they need not comply with the Act’s requirements where federal funds do not cover the increased costs of compliance.

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Court Stays Out of Mich. Abortion Case” and “Court Won’t Review Pollution Ruling.”

Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: The Court has posted its Order List at this link.

As expected, because the Court issued grants of review last Friday, today’s Order List contains no new grants of cases to be orally argued. The list does, however, contain a multitude of GVRs resulting from the Court’s recent Sentencing Guidelines rulings. And an order issued today requests the views of the Solicitor General on one case.

Lastly, in the currently-pending Guantanamo detainee case awaiting decision after oral argument, counsel for the detainees were granted permission to file a supplemental brief, while the Solicitor General was given permission to file the first section of the federal government’s supplemental brief, but not the second section.

On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition”: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “Supreme Court Takes Up Lethal Injection” (featuring Nina Totenberg) and “Supreme Court to Scrutinize Indiana Voter ID Law.”

RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Probe: Joyce claim dealt with justly; Internal review says Erie Insurance acted appropriately.” The Erie (Pa.) Times-News today contains an article that begins, “An internal review at Erie Insurance Group has concluded the company appropriately handled a claim filed in 2002 by Michael T. Joyce, who was then a state Superior Court judge. The claim remains at the center of the criminal case against Joyce that is slowly moving to trial in U.S. District Court in Erie. Joyce’s retirement from the Superior Court was effective Sunday.”

That newspaper also contains an article headlined “New lawyer sought; Government says witness presents conflict of interest in Joyce case.”

“What’s in a word? The spirit of law; U.Va. law students help win a case by arguing the value of ordinary speech.” Yesterday’s edition of The Richmond Times-Dispatch contained an article that begins, “Lawyers often are reviled for torturing the English language. Notwithstanding that truth, maybe, heretofore, we should give them a break. A crack team of University of Virginia law students who are part of the school’s fledgling Supreme Court Litigation Clinic took on a case arguing, in essence, for the integrity of ordinary speech. The team won.”

“A humble road to Supreme Court; Unassuming Lawyers Argue Death Penalty”: Today’s edition of The Lexington Herald-Leader contains an article that begins, “Monday could mark one of the most important days in the legal careers of David Barron and Jeff Middendorf. The two Kentucky lawyers will be in Washington for the legal equivalent of a New Year’s Day bowl game — playing key roles in a closely watched case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court that carries nationwide implications for the administration of the death penalty. To get to this momentous moment in their professional lives, Barron and Middendorf both chose to travel on the cheap. Barron, 29, a public defender who has argued that the state’s method of execution amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, drove to Washington in an aging Toyota Corolla with temperamental tires and an odometer pushing past 233,000 miles. He will likely be the only lawyer in the Supreme Court chambers Monday — perhaps ever — who has been homeless. Middendorf, 35, who represents the Kentucky Department of Corrections in defending the state’s method of execution, flew to Washington late last week, flew back to Kentucky this weekend — he’s the father of three children under age six — and then flew back Sunday because it was cheaper than staying five days in Washington.”

“Justices to rule whether lethal injection humane; Suit says drugs used allow cruel execution afoul of Constitution”: James Oliphant has this article today in The Chicago Tribune.

“Voter ID law going before high court; State says it prevents fraud; critics call law an unnecessary burden”: This article appears today in The Indianapolis Star.

The Times of Munster, Indiana reports today that “High court to consider voter ID law.”

And The Minneapolis Star Tribune contains an article headlined “One citizen, one vote, one form of ID? Minnesotans are deeply involved in a partisan fight, headed to the Supreme Court, over requiring photo IDs to vote; Democrats say such laws keep minorities from voting.”

“The Death Clock: Don’t count out the death penalty yet.” Benjamin Wittes has this essay online today at The New Republic.

“Supreme Court Weighs Constitutionality of Lethal Injections”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News provides this report.

“Tiger mauling survivors’ lawyer is at home in the spotlight”: The San Francisco Chronicle today contains an article that begins, “Pit bull. Hollywood. Showboat. All of these have been used to describe Mark Geragos, the attorney who jetted up from Los Angeles last week to represent the two brothers who were mauled in the Christmas Day tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo. And does that bother Geragos? Hardly.”