“Italian court lets women lie about adultery”: The Telegraph (UK) provides a report that begins, “In a victory for Italian adulterers, the country’s Supreme Court has ruled that it is acceptable for wives to lie in order to cover up an affair.”

“Justices decry outside campaign ads; Special interest groups’ commercials dominate on TV”: This article appears today in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

“Scalia advocates judicial restraint in Friday evening address; Presented with James Madison Award for Distinguished Public Service”: The Daily Princetonian provides a news update that begins, “Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia defended the Court’s role in the 2000 presidential recount in Florida and expressed his views about the Court’s role in a liberal democracy before an audience in a packed McCosh 50 on Friday night.”

The Associated Press reports that “Scalia, in Princeton speech, defends 2000 election decision.”

And News at Princeton today has a report headlined “Scalia: Courts’ powers are limited.”

“D.C. Gun Case Draws Crowd of High Court ‘Friends'”: Robert Barnes will have this article Sunday in The Washington Post.

“Bush Vetoes Bill that Bars Waterboarding”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“Obama’s Constitution: The rhetoric and the reality.” In the March 17, 2008 issue of The Weekly Standard, Edward Whelan will have an essay that begins, “Justice John Paul Stevens turns 88 in April, and by January 2009 five other justices will be from 69 to 75 years old. If Barack Obama is elected president, he will probably–with the benefit of resignations by liberal justices eager for him to be the president who chooses their successors–have the opportunity to appoint two or three Supreme Court justices in his first term, with another two or three in a potential second term.”

“Pacifist Cal State teacher gets job back”: The San Francisco Chronicle today contains an article that begins, “A Cal State East Bay math teacher and practicing Quaker who was fired for refusing to sign a state-required loyalty oath got her job back this week, with an apology from the university and a clarification that the oath does not require employees to take up arms in violation of their religious beliefs.”

And The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Instructor fired over loyalty oath reinstated; Cal State East Bay teacher refused to sign on religious grounds.”

“Civil unions aren’t marriage: The M-word does matter, and courts should make that clear.” The Los Angeles Times contains this editorial today.

“Supreme Recusal: When high court justices step aside from cases, there is no easy remedy for the consequences.” This editorial appears today in The Washington Post.

Relatedly, the current installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com is headlined “Avoiding Recusal-Based Tie Votes at the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“Bush Announces Veto of Waterboarding Ban”: Dan Eggen of The Washington Post provides this news update. And in the print edition of today’s newspaper, Eggen has an article headlined “Bush Poised to Veto Waterboarding Ban; Move Could Reverberate in Campaign.”

Sunday’s edition of The New York Times will report that “Bush Uses Veto on C.I.A. Tactics to Affirm Legacy.” The Week in Review section, meanwhile, will contain an article headlined “The Unstudied Art of Interrogation.”

And today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Weekend Edition Saturday” contained an audio segment entitled “Torture Debate at Heart of Bush FISA Veto” (RealPlayer required).

“Ex-FDA official blasts Eli Lilly in court; Expert witness for the state says profits came first”: The Anchorage Daily News today contains an article that begins, “A retired medical officer with the federal Food and Drug Administration testified Friday that drug maker Eli Lilly distorted the science and downplayed the health risks of its schizophrenia drug Zyprexa to make more money. John Gueriguian, who worked 20 years for the FDA and is now a consultant, was on the stand in Anchorage Superior Court all day Friday as an expert witness for the state of Alaska.”

And The New York Times reports today that “Lilly Waited Too Long to Warn About Schizophrenia Drug, Doctor Testifies.”

“Anti-Musharraf Lawyers Demand Release of Judges”: Sunday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an article that begins, “Beside racks of hanging meat and barrows of oranges in the alleys of the old town here, Aitzaz Ahsan, leader of the lawyers movement in Pakistan, was back on the campaign trail on Saturday, calling for the release of top justices from house arrest.”

“Some Asbestos Grace”: The Wall Street Journal today contains an editorial that begins, “The asbestos lawsuit blob has grown so large that many companies have simply given up fighting it. Then there’s W.R. Grace, which is on the verge of making legal history with a trial proceeding that could alter the federal asbestos bankruptcy landscape forever.”

“Should We Pay Federal Circuit Judges More?” On January 4, 2008, Law Professor Scott Baker had a controversial op-ed in The Los Angeles Times headlined “A raise that’s hard to justify: Federal judges exhibit no link between performance and pay.”

The op-ed drew on Baker’s then-forthcoming article in the February 2008 issue of the Boston University Law Review, headlined “Should We Pay Federal Circuit Judges More?” The final version of that law review article can now be accessed online at this link (via “Concurring Opinions“).

I discussed Baker’s op-ed in the January 23, 2008 installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com, headlined “Performance Pay for Federal Appellate Judges?”

Available online from law.com: Pamela A. MacLean reports that “9th Circuit Settles Fee Fight Between Two Firms; Dispute stems from 900 Phoenix-area residents’ lawsuit against Motorola for environmental pollution.” You can access Thursday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

In other news, “‘Human Dummy’ Crash-Test Data Held Admissible in Accident Case.” You can access Thursday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of New Jersey at this link.

And an article headlined “House Prepares for Contempt Challenge” begins, “The House is planning to file a lawsuit early [next] week challenging the Bush administration’s assertion of executive privilege to shield current and former White House officials from congressional subpoenas.”

“Havana Dreams Deferred: Four Vermonters sue the U.S. government for the right to see their families in Cuba.” This week’s issue of Seven Days contains an article that begins, “Some might say it takes major cojones to file a lawsuit against the United States government on behalf of yourself and several million Cuban-Americans over an entrenched, half-century-old foreign policy — especially if you’re neither Cuban-American nor a bona fide lawyer. But for Jared Carter, a second-year student at Vermont Law School in South Royalton, all it took was love.”

“Anthrax Reporter Held in Contempt”: Pete Yost of The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A federal judge held a former USA Today reporter in contempt of court Friday and ordered her to pay up to $5,000 a day if she refuses to identify her sources for stories about a former Army scientist under scrutiny in the 2001 anthrax attacks.”

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

“All Roads Lead to Rove: A fired U.S. attorney speaks out in a new book.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Appeals Court Decision Protects Pfizer’s Celebrex From Generic Firm Teva Pharmaceutical”: The Associated Press provides this report.

And Reuters reports that “US court upholds patent case against Teva.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit at this link.

“Request For Public Comment On Proposed Revisions To Code Of Conduct For United States Judges”: The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has issued this news release today. You can view the proposed revisions in two formats: clean copy and mark-up of existing rules.

“When Should a Judge Face Discipline for What an Opinion Says?” The May 14, 2007 installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com began, “Earlier this month, the Investigative Panel of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission issued formal disciplinary charges against an appellate judge serving on Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal based on statements contained in a concurring opinion the judge had issued in the course of deciding a case on appeal.”

Just two days ago, Special Counsel for Florida’s Judicial Qualifications Commission filed its trial memorandum in that judicial disciplinary proceeding, and you can access that trial memorandum at this link.

Attorneys for the judge who is the subject of the disciplinary proceeding filed their pretrial memorandum last week. It describes the proceeding as “the first time in Florida history that an appellate judge has been charged with misconduct based on his written and published opinion.”

“A true story could cost newspaper $18-million; The high court mulls a ‘false light’ ruling”: The St. Petersburg Times today contains an article that begins, “Florida’s free press could be paralyzed if the courts affirm an $18-million judgment against the Pensacola News Journal for publishing a true story about a man who shot and killed his wife while a divorce was pending. That was the claim from Robert C. Bernius, a Washington lawyer arguing Thursday before the Florida Supreme Court for the newspaper in a case with important consequences for Florida journalism.”

And The Tallahassee Democrat reports today that “‘False light’ cases get day in court; Justices weigh merit of lawsuits against media.”

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Florida heard oral argument in the cases captioned Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Edith Rapp and Joe Anderson, Jr. v. Gannett Co., Inc.

In the Jews for Jesus case, you can access the briefs via this link. And you can view the oral argument online using either RealPlayer or Windows Media Player.

In the Anderson case, you can access the briefs via this link. And you can view the oral argument online using either RealPlayer or Windows Media Player.

“What Judges Look for in Law Clerks”: Former U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Justice Scalia’s Two-Front War: Despite lip service to ‘judicial restraint’ Scalia has been waging a war against consumer product regulation as well as protections for workers, at both the state and federal level.” Simon Lazarus and Harper Jean Tobin have this essay online at The American Prospect.

“Lawsuit over book on sex blog on DeWine staffer can continue”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A former staffer of then-U.S. Sen. Mike DeWine of Ohio can continue his lawsuit against a publisher that released a 2005 book based on an online sex diary that included the staffer as fodder, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.”

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

“Pa. Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Removal Action Against Judge; Arguments mark judge’s second visit to state high court to face a challenge to her office”: law.com provides a report that begins, “Philadelphia Municipal Court Judge Deborah S. Griffin’s use of a false Social Security number to obtain credit card accounts doesn’t rise to the level of an infamous crime that would disqualify her from holding office, her attorney argued Wednesday before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.”

“Pfizer, Exxon Find U.S. Justices as Shareholders May Cost Them”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News provides this report.

“SCOTUSblog” has a post titled “How Often Does A Recusal Result In An Equally Divided Court?”

And this week’s installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com is headlined “Avoiding Recusal-Based Tie Votes at the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“Hello, Dahlia! Lithwick relishes Supreme Court jester role.” This week’s issue of The Hook of Charlottesville, Virginia contains this profile.

“A Key Case on Gun Control: In a landmark case, the Supreme Court considers just how far the Second Amendment’s freedoms go.” Emma Schwartz of U.S. News & World Report has this article.

“Candidate seeks info on justice; Answers wanted on Maynard’s link to Massey CEO”: The Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette today contains an article that begins, “Bob Bastress, running for one of two open seats on the state Supreme Court in May’s Democratic primary, wants Chief Justice Elliott ‘Spike’ Maynard to reveal more information about his relationship with Don Blankenship, chief executive officer of Massey Energy. During a Wednesday press conference at the Capitol, Bastress called for an independent commission to investigate ties between Maynard and Blankenship, who were photographed together while on vacation along the French Riviera and Monaco in July 2006.”

And The West Virginia Record provides a news update headlined “Supreme Court says it can’t investigate Maynard-Blankenship friendship.”

“Supreme Court of Canada will hear appeal of Quebec language law”: The Canadian Press provides this report.

“Oregon Supreme Court rules punitive damages excessive”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “In a victory for an insurance company accused of acting in bad faith, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a $20.7 million jury award for punitive damages in a fatal traffic accident in 1987 was excessive. The case also set a guideline for most lawsuits involving punitive damages by deciding that four times the actual damages should be the limit in Oregon.”

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

Available online from law.com: An article reports that “Polo Association Trademark Survives Ralph Lauren Lawsuit.” My earlier coverage of Tuesday’s Second Circuit ruling appears at this link.

And in other news, “Judge’s Widow May Not Pursue Benefits on Claim Husband Was Worked to Death; After 21 years, quest for benefits reaches dead end.” My earlier coverage of last week’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Connecticut appears at this link.

“26-Year Secret Kept Innocent Man In Prison; Lawyers Tell 60 Minutes They Were Legally Bound From Revealing Secret”: The CBS News program “60 Minutes” provides this preview of a segment that will air on Sunday.

“Fired U.S. attorney says colleague told him politics was behind his ouster”: Marisa Taylor of McClatchy Newspapers provides this report.