“California Justices Set to Weigh Gay Marriage”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

Earlier today, I collected here much additional coverage of yesterday’s oral argument.

“Of all the conversations I’ve had with Justice O’Connor over the years, one of the most interesting and provocative was a personal one.” So begins a new post that ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg has today at her “Legalities” blog.

Unanimous three-judge Sixth Circuit panel affirms federal district court’s invalidation, under the First Amendment, of an Ohio law that makes it a felony to pay anyone for gathering signatures on election-related petitions on any basis other than time worked: Circuit Judge David W. McKeague‘s opinion begins, “As with the law in general, the First Amendment is a jealous mistress. It enables the people to exchange ideas (popular and unpopular alike), to assemble with the hope of changing minds, and to alter or preserve how we govern ourselves. But in return, it demands that sometimes seemingly reasonable measures enacted by our governments give way.”

“Court Looks At Internet Limits”: The Hartford Courant today contains an article that begins, “The dispute over a Burlington, Conn., teenager’s Internet journal gave rise on Tuesday to a wide-ranging and contentious federal court hearing about free speech, whether schools can regulate students’ language off campus and how the Internet blurs the boundaries of a school campus. Avery Doninger, the 17-year-old high school senior at the center of the case, sat in the front row as a three-judge panel of the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals lobbed questions at the attorneys. Lawyers for both sides described the hearing as uncharacteristically lengthy and suggested that the duration underscored the case’s position in new legal territory.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Appeals Court Weighs Teen’s Web Speech.”

The ruling under review, which U.S District Judge Mark R. Kravitz of the District of Connecticut issued on August 31, 2007, can be viewed at this link. This blog’s earlier coverage of that ruling can be accessed here.

“Calif. Supreme Court Excuses Managers From Retaliation Suits; Ruling brings unusually sharp dissents, with one justice accusing majority of engaging in ‘analytical contortions'”: law.com provides this report on Monday’s 4-3 ruling of the Supreme Court of California.

“Same-sex marriage has skeptics on California Supreme Court; The justices pose varying questions during arguments over the constitutionality of the state’s ban on same-sex marriage; They have 90 days to reach a decision”: Maura Dolan has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

Today in The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that “Definition of Marriage Is at Heart of California Case.”

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Court appears split on same-sex marriage.”

Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “State supreme court in gay marriage storm; State’s top jurists begin weighing biggest civil rights case in decades.”

Josh Richman of The Oakland Tribune reports that “Same-sex marriage gets tough hearing; Ruling by state’s highest court could set tone for nation.”

Greg Moran of The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that “Court hears arguments on same-sex marriage; ‘Very divided opinion’ expected by one expert.”

The Sacramento Bee reports that “Gays’ right to wed argued; State justices discuss legality of ban, how to define marriage.”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Dale Carpenter has a post titled “Observations on oral argument in the California marriage case.”

The California Channel has posted online at this link (Windows Media Player required) the video of yesterday’s oral argument. And the Supreme Court of California has made available at this link (Windows Media Player required) the audio recording of yesterday’s oral argument.

“Supreme Court to Release Same-Day Tapes”: Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article that begins, “The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will take the special step of releasing audiotapes of oral arguments on the same day that it hears a case challenging the District’s gun law.”

“Judges Grant Release Of 3 City Crack Offenders”: The New York Sun today contains an article that begins, “On the heels of a federal decision to retroactively reduce prison sentences for crack cocaine offenders, judges in the city have granted motions to release defendants from federal prisons, defense lawyers and court officials said.”

And The Washington Post reports today that “Government Starts Cutting Sentences Of Crack Inmates; Bureau of Prisons Processes 400 Orders.”

“Judge asked to drop one Nichols attorney; Public defender leader says state-funded budget is tapped out; staff can help 3 left”: Today’s edition of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution contains an article that begins, “Fulton County Courthouse rampage suspect Brian Nichols may lose one of his state-funded attorneys if Georgia officials get their way at a hearing Thursday.”

“Personality Check: Malingerer Test Roils Personal-Injury Law; ‘Fake Bad Scale’ Bars Real Victims, Its Critics Contend.” This front page article appears today in The Wall Street Journal.

“Philadelphia judge threatened with disbarment for 1984 crime”: According to an article published today in The Philadelphia Inquirer, “Today, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will hear arguments in Pittsburgh that [the judge] should be removed for failing to report to the state bar association that she is a convicted felon.”

“FBI: Don’t make us pay John Connolly’s debt; Fights to get out of $3.1 judgement.” This article, about a case argued Monday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, appeared yesterday in The Boston Herald.

“BC Law School will not bestow honor on Mukasey”: The Boston Globe today contains an article that begins, “Boston College Law School will not award its highest honor to US Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey when he speaks at its May commencement, amid sharp criticism from students, faculty, and alumni over his invitation.”

The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Mukasey’s rough justice.”

“Cartel case papers can be shown, court says”: The San Diego Union-Tribune today contains an article that begins, “The public has the right to see documents and transcripts relating to the secret guilty plea of a Tijuana drug kingpin, despite what prosecutors say, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.”

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

“Wikileaks Is Spared a Shutdown As a Federal Judge Reverses Course: How Broadly Will the First Amendment Protect A Website Inviting Leaks of Confidential Documents?” Julie Hilden has this essay online today at FindLaw.

“Grand jury won’t indict Planned Parenthood”: Today’s edition of The Kansas City Star contains an article that begins, “A Johnson County grand jury wrapped up its three-month investigation of Planned Parenthood’s Overland Park clinic Monday without issuing any indictments.”

“State Supreme Court appears split in gay marriage hearing; The justices pose varying questions during arguments over the constitutionality of California’s ban on same-sex marriage; They have 90 days to reach a decision”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.

The San Francisco Chronicle provides a news update headlined “State Supreme Court grills lawyers in same-sex marriage case.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Gay Marriage Returns to Calif. Court.”

“Justices to Release Audio in Guns Case”: The Associated Press provides this report.

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “Listening in on the D.C. Gun Case.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has begun to post online its judicial misconduct decisions: The announcement appeared yesterday at that court’s web site, and the decisions now available online via this link date back to the beginning of 2008.

On a related note, one week from today, the Judicial Conference of the United States will consider draft Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings. You can view the latest version of the draft at this link. A reporter for a large mainstream media outlet contacted me yesterday to ask for my thoughts regarding “the abrupt changing of draft reforms of federal judicial discipline rules last Monday,” but unfortunately that’s the first I had heard about the subject.

Finally for now, the web site of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has recently posted online two new opinions of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability. You can access them both by clicking here (they appear back-to-back in the same PDF file). The second of the two opinions involves U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real, while the first may or may not involve to him.

What precautions may police validly take to avoid a feared mass murder-suicide by someone thought to be in possession of a vast number of guns and lots of ammunition? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit today addresses that question in an opinion that Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel.

“Ex-justice takes Duane Morris law job”: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today contains an article that begins, “Cynthia Baldwin, former justice on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, has joined the Pittsburgh office of law firm Duane Morris, where she will be a partner in the trial practice group and work in appellate litigation.”

“Specter presses Leahy on judges”: Alexander Bolton has this article in today’s issue of The Hill.

And at “The Swamp” blog of The Chicago Tribune, James Oliphant has a post titled “Political rhetoric over federal judges heats up.”

Senator Specter’s letter to Senator Leahy can be viewed at this link, while the text of Senator Leahy’s comments in response can be accessed here.

To what extent does the First Amendment allow the public and the media to access the transcript of a plea colloquy, a plea agreement’s “cooperation addendum,” and the documents supporting a motion to seal the plea proceedings: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today issued this ruling on the federal government’s appeal from a federal district court’s ruling unsealing these documents. Today’s ruling, written by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel, affirms in part and vacates in part the federal district court’s ruling.

Footnote five to today’s ruling explains that the ruling contains a “sealed addendum [that] will be made available [only] to the government, to the district court, to our colleagues on this court and to the Supreme Court, should it choose to review our opinion.”

Second Circuit affirms jury verdict rejecting three trademark infringement claims that Polo Ralph Lauren asserted against the United States Polo Association: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

Today’s oral argument before the Supreme Court of California in the same-sex marriage cases is now underway: Via The California Channel, you can view the oral argument live, online by clicking here (Windows Media Player required).

Sixth Circuit addresses whether a provision of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 eliminates a deficiency claim when, in a Chapter 13 plan, the debtors propose to surrender a car purchased within 910 days before filing for bankruptcy: Today, the members of a three-judge Sixth Circuit panel issued a ruling that announces three separate views on how this question should be resolved.

The lead opinion, which uses the judicial “we” although speaking for only its author, begins:

This consumer bankruptcy, Chapter 13 case arises because the debtor bought a car under a typical financing arrangement in which the lender retained a lien or mortgage on the car as security for payment of the outstanding loan that enabled the debtor to buy the car. The debtor proposed to surrender the car to the finance company as part of the Chapter 13 plan. The value of the car was less than the outstanding debt. Due to a glitch or gap in a recent revision of the Bankruptcy Code intended to benefit creditors, the law is now silent on what happens to the remaining indebtedness in the surrender-of-the-car situation. The bankruptcy court below held that the congressional mistake in drafting the revision means that the remaining indebtedness is completely wiped out. We believe the gap should be filled and the Congressional mistake corrected. The law previously governing this situation should be restored until Congress can correct its mistake and fill in the gap.

Previously, the Seventh Circuit (opinion here) and the Eighth Circuit (opinion here; my coverage here) have weighed in on this interesting question of statutory construction.

“Suits vs. Pfizer in Michigan can go on”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News provides a report that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court deadlocked Monday in a fight about patient lawsuits over federally approved drugs and devices, issuing a 4-4 decision that lets Michigan patients sue Pfizer Inc. over its now-withdrawn Rezulin diabetes treatment.”

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.”

“California high court to hear arguments on gay marriage ban”: The Sacramento Bee today contains an article that begins, “The California Supreme Court today begins probing a pivotal civil rights question, one that has sparked controversy in courthouses across the country: Should gay couples be allowed to marry?”

Adam Tanner of Reuters reports that “California’s top court ponders gay marriage.”

And today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle contains an article headlined “Same-sex couples see stories mix with history.”

The California Channel will supposedly be broadcasting the oral argument live online, beginning at noon eastern time today. You can access via this link the briefs filed in the case.

“Mukasey’s Paradox: When you think about it, his manipulations are a beautiful, twisted thing.” Law Professor Jonathan Turley has this op-ed today in The Los Angeles Times.

“U.S. Bows Out of Court Fight Over PLO Funds”: Today in The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein has an article that begins, “The Justice Department has decided not to intervene, at least for now, to prevent the wife of a terrorism victim from pursuing a $174 million legal judgment against the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization.”

“Wiretap Compromise in Works; FISA Update May Hinge On Two Separate Votes”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“Supreme Court defers action on TV ‘expletives’ case”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

$54 million pants suit leads to proposed legislation in Maryland: The Washington Post reports today that “Md. Bill Offers Recourse to Customers of Dry Cleaners; $54 Million Suit Inspires Proposal.”

“To Magna Excitement, Magna Carta Returns; After Seven Centuries, the Words of Liberty Still Look Good”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“‘Friends Of The Barnes’ Fire Back”: Yesterday in The Philadelphia Bulletin, Jim McCaffrey had an article that begins, “Attorney Eric Spade, newly hired to represent the Friends of the Barnes, threw a flurry of punches in his opening round in the fight to keep the Barnes Foundation in Lower Merion.”