The smell of marijuana emanating from a tenth-floor apartment in a high-crime area does not provide probable cause for police, while lacking a search warrant, to require the apartment’s occupant to open the door: A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued this interesting opinion today.

Although today’s opinion could be seen as providing lessons for why a suspect should not slap at a police officer’s hand or wrestle with police once handcuffed, the suspect may ultimately have the last laugh as a result of this ruling in his favor.

“Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision.” The Associated Press provides this report.

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Oregon at this link.

“The Justice and the Baroness”: Today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post that begins, “Two female judicial pioneers — one from the U.S. and the other from the U.K. — compared notes at Georgetown University Law Center Thursday and found they both had restroom stories to tell.”

My earlier coverage, including a link to video of the event, appears here.

“This is a patent infringement case relating to chimeric genes.” How do you alter the DNA of corn so that what results is toxic to certain crop-destroying insects but harmless for humans and most animals? A discussion of the science involved is found in this ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued today.

Today’s ruling in Monsanto Co. v. Bayer Bioscience N.V. affirms a trial court’s decision that Bayer’s patents at issue in the case are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.

“Court blocks father from circumcising 12-year-old son”: The Oregonian provides a news update that begins, “The Oregon Supreme Court on Friday blocked a divorced former Southern Oregon man from circumcising his 12-year-old son against the wishes of the boy’s mother. The court ruled that the trial judge failed to determine whether the boy wanted to have the procedure. The child’s mother, Lia Boldt, claims that circumcision is dangerous and that her son is afraid to say he doesn’t want the procedure. The court ordered the case back to the trial judge to determine the boy’s wishes.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Oregon at this link.

“Resegregation of U.S. schools deepening; Districts in big cities of the Midwest and Northeast undergo the most change”: This article appears today in The Christian Science Monitor.

“OSJCL Amici launches with four district judges on Gall and Kimbrough“: In this post at his “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog, Doug Berman notes the availability online of “original commentaries by four district judges discussing federal sentencing after last month’s Gall and Kimbrough rulings.”

“Court ruling clouds naming of Major League players who used steroids”: In today’s edition of The San Jose Mercury News, Howard Mintz has an article that begins, “A federal appeals court has for the second time generally sided with Justice Department efforts to use the names and urine samples of about 100 Major League baseball players who tested positive for steroids four years ago. But the convoluted 119-page ruling likely means federal investigators will still be unable use the controversial test results for the foreseeable future because the issue is expected to be tied up in the courts for some time.”

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

“Workers can be fired for using medical pot off duty, court rules; Patients under doctor’s care can be dismissed, even if marijuana use occurs during off hours, high court rules”: Maura Dolan has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Company can fire medical pot user, court rules.”

The Sacramento Bee reports that “Medical pot rights don’t apply at work, court says; Despite 1996 state law, employers can fire those who flunk drug test.”

The New York Times reports that “California Justices Put Limits on Medical Marijuana Law.”

The Washington Post reports that “Calif. Firms Can Fire Medical Marijuana Users; State’s High Court Finds Compassionate Use Act Does Not Affect Employers’ Rights.”

And law.com reports that “Calif. Supreme Court Gives Bosses Leeway to Fire Medical Pot Users; Plaintiff was upfront about medical pot use, and it didn’t affect his job performance, but court majority OK’d his firing.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of California at this link.

“Judge Demands a Report on Destroyed C.I.A. Tapes”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an article that begins, “A judge on Thursday gave the Justice Department three weeks to report in writing whether the destruction of C.I.A. videotapes in November 2005 violated an order he issued four months earlier to preserve evidence.”

“A Nominee Withdraws: President Bush has another chance to fill vacancies on a federal appeals court.” The Washington Post today contains an editorial that begins, “President Bush owes E. Duncan Getchell Jr. a debt of gratitude. Mr. Getchell recently asked that his nomination be withdrawn for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, the federal court that hears appeals from Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia and the Carolinas.”

“In Senate, a White House Victory on Eavesdropping”: The New York Times contains this article today.

The Washington Post reports today that “Phone Firms’ Bid for Immunity in Wiretaps Gains Ground.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Senate spy bill still shields telecoms; A revision is blocked; it omitted retroactive immunity for firms sued for cooperating with the government.”

And The Providence (R.I.) Journal contains an article headlined “ACLU: Lynch caves in to feds on phone privacy.”

“Bush Seeks More Violent Crime Funds; Possible Early Release for Crack Cocaine Offenders Is Cited as Rationale”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

And The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Mukasey sees risk in early release; Clemency for crack inmates could boost crime, the attorney general says.”

“Turkey to Alter Speech Law”: The New York Times today contains an article reporting that “Turkey’s government has taken on the issue of free speech and is expected as early as Friday to announce a weakening of a law against insulting Turkishness, an amendment that is considered a key measure of the democratic maturity of this Muslim country as it tries to gain acceptance to the European Union.”

“Swedes Ponder Whether Killer Can Be a Doctor”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

“Stoneridge and the Rule of Law”: Paul S. Atkins has this op-ed today in The Wall Street Journal.

“Constitutional Law Professor Klarman Joins HLS; Winner of 2005 Bancroft Prize, Klarman studies race relations and the role of the Supreme Court”: The Harvard Crimson provides this news update.

And yesterday, the Harvard Law School issued a news release entitled “Michael Klarman to join HLS faculty.”

“Lynne Stewart Case Returning to Court”: Today in The New York Sun, Joseph Goldstein has an article that begins, “The disbarred attorney Lynne Stewart next week will seek to have overturned her conviction of acting as middleman between a terrorist she represented and his followers in Egypt. The Justice Department isn’t pleased with the outcome of the case, either: It will be arguing that Stewart’s sentence of 28 months, which prompted celebration among her supporters outside the courthouse in 2006, was much too lenient. Prosecutors are aiming for a sentence of several more decades. Stewart’s case, along with those of two co-defendants, her translator and law clerk, will be argued Tuesday afternoon before the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.”

“Complaints filed against Medina, Hecht; Advocacy group raises a red flag over justices’ reimbursements for travel expenses”: The Houston Chronicle today contains an article that begins, “Ethics complaints were filed Thursday against Texas Supreme Court Justices David Medina and Nathan Hecht questioning charges they made to their campaign accounts for travel.”

Texas Lawyer provides reports headlined “Watchdog Group Files Ethics Complaint Against Three Texas Justices” and “Foreman: Grand Jury Wants to Make Presentation on Medina Investigation to Incoming Panel; ‘You’ve got 12 angry jurors,’ says foreman.”

And today’s edition of The San Antonio Express-News contains an editorial entitled “Repay travel expenses, follow the ethics rules.”

“Supreme Court is border guard, lightning rod, Breyer says”: This article appears today in The Norman (Okla.) Transcript.

And The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court justice discusses terrorism, civil liberties.”

As noted in an article headlined “OU alumnus will be sworn in as chief judge this week at OU” that The Norman Transcript published on Wednesday, today “Robert Henry will be sworn in as the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit” at the University of Oklahoma College of Law.

“New Chief Judge beginning February 11, 2008”: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit yesterday issued a press release that begins, “Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg announced that he will relinquish his position as Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on February 10, 2008.” The press release goes on to report that “Judge Ginsburg will continue as an active member of the Court of Appeals.”

Chief Judge Ginsburg‘s seven-year term as the D.C. Circuit’s leader was scheduled to expire in July 2008. By stepping down a few months early, Chief Judge Ginsburg allows Circuit Judge David B. Sentelle to succeed him as chief judge. Judge Sentelle turns 65 years of age later this year, and upon reaching that age would become statutorily ineligible to serve as chief judge of a U.S. Court of Appeals. By becoming chief judge before reaching age 65, Judge Sentelle can serve in that post until he reaches the age of 70.

Update: In describing several of Chief Judge Ginsburg’s more notable accomplishments, yesterday’s press release notes: “On the national front, Chief Judge Ginsburg fostered the move to allow the citation of unpublished opinions, a practice now codified in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.” That is a praiseworthy accomplishment, indeed. And I can’t help but remember the time when “How Appealing” published an email from Chief Judge Ginsburg announcing that the D.C. Circuit had decided to make freely available over its web site orders granting rehearing en banc in response to a suggestion that I had made here a few months earlier.

“Female Jurists Hold Court at GU; Ginsberg, Hale Discuss Judicial Systems”: This article (whose headline misspells Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s last name) appears today in The Hoya of Georgetown University.

You can view online a webcast of yesterday’s event via this link.

“Gun-rights arguments”: Yesterday’s edition of The Washington Times contained an editorial that begins, “Last week, the Bush administration put troubling distance between itself and principled Second Amendment defenders. We refer to the amicus brief that Solicitor General Paul Clement filed Friday in support of the plaintiffs in District of Columbia v. Heller — the D.C. gun-ban challenge, widely expected to be the court’s most significant gun-rights case in 60 years when a decision is reached.”

“Birmingham lawyer retires to pursue passion: sculpting.” Yesterday’s edition of The Birmingham News contained an article that begins, “Birmingham lawyer Warren Lightfoot was finally ready last year to show colleagues at his law office his latest sculpted work- a commissioned bust of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.”

“Scalia: Morality not job of judges.” This article appears today in The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal.

“Oregon Supreme Court to decide circumcision case Friday”: The Oregonian provides a news update that begins, “A divorce dispute over whether to circumcise a 12-year-old boy will be decided Friday by the Oregon Supreme Court. The nationally-watched case pits a father who converted to Judaism and wants his son to undergo the religious ritual, against his mother, an orthodox Christian who claims the boy doesn’t want to be circumcised.” The decision should be available online by noon eastern time on Friday.

“School Board tries to recover ‘Bong Hits’ court fees”: Today’s edition of The Juneau Empire contains an article that begins, “A lawyer representing the former local high school student whose ‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ banner unfurled a lengthy free speech debate is accusing the attorney for the Juneau School Board of harassing his client over a $5,000 legal bill. Douglas Mertz said the board’s lawyer is trying to force his client, Joseph Frederick, to leave his job in China to face a February deposition in Juneau regarding his personal finances.”

In news from Texas: The Associated Press provides reports headlined “Lawyer wants to erase charges against Texas Supreme Court justice” and “Group files ethics complaints against justices Hecht, Medina.”

“State Supreme Court OKs new rule protecting journalists’ sources”: The Salt Lake Tribune provides a news update that begins, “The Utah Supreme Court has adopted one of the strongest rules in the nation allowing reporters to refuse to identify confidential sources.”

And Geoffrey Fattah of The Deseret Morning News has a news update headlined “Utah moves to adopt first reporter’s shield rule.”

“Court to rehear Massey case”: The West Virginia Record provides a report that begins, “In a unanimous vote Thursday, the Justices of the state’s Supreme Court of Appeals decided to reconsider their ruling in a controversial case.”

And The Associated Press reports that “In wake of photos, recusal, Supreme Court to rehear Massey case.”

“Judge Rejects Patriot Act Challenge”: From Connecticut, The AP provides a report that begins, “A federal judge rejected a former sailor’s claim Thursday that the government illegally intercepted phone calls and obtained e-mails it is using against him in a terrorism-support case. Hassan Abu-Jihaad’s attorneys had claimed elements of the USA Patriot Act used to obtain the evidence were unconstitutional, and cited a ruling by a federal judge in Oregon striking down key portions of the law. U.S. District Court Judge Mark Kravitz, however, said he disagreed with that ruling, and noted that other courts have found that the law does not infringe on constitutional rights.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut at this link.

“Senate Rejects Secret Court Measure”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The Senate on Thursday rejected an attempt to expand a secret court’s oversight of government eavesdropping, sticking instead with a surveillance bill favored by the White House.”

In today’s mail: The book “Solo by Choice,” by Carolyn Elefant, author of the newly redesigned “My Shingle” blog. It seems that I’m mentioned on page 175.

“Surprise! The Times Attacks the Messenger; Linda Greenhouse is conflicted, so obviously the problem is Ed Whelan.” Andrew C. McCarthy has this essay today at National Review Online.

Ninth Circuit’s “superseding opinion” in baseball steroids probe turns out to be, at least at the outset, too complicated for The Associated Press to understand: A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this order and superseding opinion today.

The AP, reporting on today’s development in an article headlined “Appeals court to reconsider baseball order,” overlooks the fact that today’s Ninth Circuit action not only vacates that court’s earlier decision, but it also replaces it with a brand new decision. Indeed, that article even goes so far as to say that “The 9th Circuit did not set a timetable for reconsidering the case.” Perhaps that’s because the reconsideration, such as it was, has already occurred.

Update: I’m pleased to report that The AP has rewritten its coverage to take into account that the Ninth Circuit in fact issued a new ruling on the matter today. The AP’s updated coverage is headlined “Court Affirms Access to Player Drug Data.”