“High Court Starts Case Challenging D.C. Gun Ban”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“Supreme Court to rule on broadcast indecency; The justices will weigh whether federal regulators may levy large fines on broadcasters who let expletives on the airwaves during daytime and early evening hours”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes and Frank Ahrens have a front page article headlined “Supreme Court to Review FCC Ban on Profanity.”

Joan Biskupic of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court to hear case stemming from celebrities who swore on live TV.”

And in The New York Sun, Joseph Goldstein reports that “Nine Will Consider Whether TV Curse Words Merit Fines.”

“Terror Appeals Judge Waits for Cases”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Frank J. Williams is well prepared for his role as chief judge of a special appeals court designed to decide legal issues stemming from the detention of terror suspects. He’s studied legal decisions on the detention of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. He’s researched and written about Abraham Lincoln’s use of military courts to prosecute Confederate sympathizers during the Civil War. There’s just one problem: Williams is still waiting for his first case.”

“A False Claim of Valor and a Cry of Free Speech”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains this installment of Adam Liptak’s weekly “Sidebar” column.

“Court decision on gun-control is personal for 2 women”: Bill Mears of CNN.com provides this report.

Today’s edition of The Washington Post profiles the lead attorneys for the parties in articles headlined “An Old Hand At Court Gears Up for Battle” and “For Young Area Lawyer, The Supreme Compliment.” In addition, an article reports that “Tickets Prized Just as Much As the NCAA Tournament’s; Line Forms Early for 70 Seats at Supreme Court Hearing.”

The New York Times today contains an editorial entitled “The Court Considers Gun Control.”

The Los Angeles Times contains an editorial entitled “D.C. gun law goes to Supreme Court; The regulation of weapons could take a hit in a controversial case.”

In The Boston Globe, Robert A. Levy has an op-ed entitled “Fighting for our right to bear arms.”

In The Wall Street Journal, Randy E. Barnett has an op-ed entitled “Gun-Rights Showdown.”

And in USA Today, Don Campbell has an op-ed entitled “A gunfight that won’t be settled; In hearing the D.C. gun ban case, the Supreme Court very well may decide whether an individual right is enshrined in the Second Amendment; But other critical issues pertaining to weapons and ownership won’t move an inch.”

“Justice Kennedy comes back to HLS to mark 20 years on the Supreme Court”: Harvard Law School issued this news release last Wednesday.

“Harvard Law, Hoping Students Will Consider Public Service, Offers Tuition Break”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “Concerned by the low numbers of law students choosing careers in public service, Harvard Law School plans to waive tuition for third-year students who pledge to spend five years working either for nonprofit organizations or the government.”

And Harvard Law School has issued a news release headlined “Harvard Law School launches new Public Service Initiative.”

“Affirmative action foes point to Obama; Say candidate is proof effort no longer needed”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.

And in somewhat related news, Jonathan D. Salant of Bloomberg News reports that “Obama’s Bid Doesn’t Have Support of Most Black Corporate Elite.”

“Justices Take Up On-Air Vulgarity Again”: Linda Greenhouse will have this article Tuesday in The New York Times.

“High court to review D.C. handgun ban”: Joan Biskupic has this article online at USA Today.

Tuesday’s edition of The Times of London contains an article headlined “Landmark legal shootout over gun law.”

Tuesday’s edition of The Fort Worth Star-Telegram will report that “Texans have a stake in gun case; The Supreme Court will be asked to clarify right ‘to keep and bear arms’ in case, which begins today.”

At ABCNews.com, Ariane de Vogue and Dennis Powell have an article headlined “High Court to Hear Major Second Amendment Case; Attorneys to Spar Over Washington, D.C. Gun Ban.”

The Oklahoman reports that “High court’s ruling could change rules on gun ownership.”

CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen has a “CourtWatch” column entitled “High Noon For The 2nd Amendment? Expect A Showdown During U.S. Supreme Court’s Landmark Gun Case.”

And Tuesday in The Christian Science Monitor, Ellis Washington will have an op-ed entitled “Tyranny of a ‘reasonable’ gun ban; Rights, not legal fiction, should sway DC v. Heller.”

“Supreme Court’s inaction upholds city’s sex-business ordinance”: The Houston Chronicle provides a news update that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal brought by some local strip clubs challenging the city’s sexually oriented business ordinance. The court’s decision could end what has been 10 years of hotly contested federal litigation between the city and scores of adult businesses over regulations in the ordinance.”

“Positive Liberties at the Point of a Gun or Constitutional Obsolescence?” Doug Kmiec has this interesting post at Slate’s “Convictions” blog.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Charles Fried has this post about the case.

In Tuesday’s edition of The Christian Science Monitor: Warren Richey will have articles headlined “Historic case may decide U.S. gun rights; Hearings on the constitutionality of a D.C. gun ban begin Tuesday; The Supreme Court is looking at the Second Amendment for the first time since 1939” and “FCC’s obscenity rule to get Supreme Court’s ear; The tribunal agrees to take a case about the commission’s crackdown on stations that air expletives.”

In addition, tomorrow’s newspaper will contain an article headlined “‘State secrets’ privilege fuels surveillance bill battle; Friday’s House vote, ignoring veto threat, is latest bid by Democrats to rein in White House powers.”

Edwin Kneedler today argued his 100th case before the U.S. Supreme Court: Tony Mauro notes the milestone in this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

That blog also offers this recent post from Joe Palazzolo reporting on the growing line for public admission to tomorrow’s Second Amendment oral argument at the Court.

“Supreme Court to Review FCC Ban on Profanity”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post provides this news update.

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers provides a report headlined “Supreme Court takes on ‘fleeting obscenities’ on TV.”

And at her “Legalities” blog, ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg has a post titled “Dirty Words.”

“Individual’s Right to Bear Arms at Issue”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press provides this report.

“Is the Supreme Court Biased in Favor of Business?” Eric Posner has this post at Slate’s “Convictions” blog commenting on Jeffrey Rosen’s cover story from yesterday’s issue of The New York Times Magazine.

Access online the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Rothgery v. Gillespie County, No. 07-440: At this link.

“Putting the Second Amendment Second: Reframing the constitutional debate over gun control.” Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“The Court and the Second Amendment”: This audio segment (you can listen online in both RealPlayer and Windows Media Player formats) appeared on today’s broadcast of the public radio program “On Point.”

“State can’t restrict kids’ access to video games, court says”: The Minneapolis Star Tribune provides this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Judges Bar Law on Violent Video Games.”

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

Give that undercover federal drug informant a shiny dollar coin: Had the federal government followed Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook‘s advice, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit would not have reversed several criminal convictions in this interesting decision issued today.

Slate launches law blog: The title of the blog is “Convictions.” Chances are you will recognize the names of at least some, and perhaps many, of the blog’s contributors.

“Condemned cop killer denied new trial; Ga. Supreme Court rules 4-3 against Troy Davis”: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution provides a news update that begins, “The Georgia Supreme Court on Monday, by a 4-3 vote, rejected Troy Anthony Davis’ bid for a new trial, keeping the condemned cop killer who claims he is innocent on death row. Davis was sentenced to death in Chatham County for the 1989 murder of Savannah Police Officer Mark Allen MacPhail in a Burger King parking lot. Since his trial 17 years ago, seven of the nine witnesses used by prosecutors to convict Davis have recanted their testimony.”

The Associated Press reports that “Georgia Supreme Court denies new trial for Troy Davis.”

And Reuters reports that “Court rejects appeal by death row man.”

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

“Victims Battle Over Marcos’ Money”: Pete Yost of The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The Supreme Court on Monday expressed sympathy for Filipino victims of the Ferdinand Marcos regime while raising the possibility it may have no choice but to rule against them in a dispute over who owns $35 million once held by the late dictator.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has posted online at this link the transcript of today’s oral argument in Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, No. 06-1204.

“New Trial for Ex-Qwest Boss Nacchio”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A federal appeals court ordered a new trial Monday for former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio, saying the trial judge wrongly excluded expert testimony and classified information important to Nacchio’s defense in his insider trading case.”

The Denver Post provides a news update headlined “Nacchio conviction reversed.”

The Rocky Mountain News provides an update headlined “Court orders new Nacchio trial.”

The Wall Street Journal provides a news update headlined “Appeals Court Orders New Trial for Nacchio.”

And Reuters reports that “Court throws out Nacchio insider trading verdicts.”

Circuit Judge Michael W. McConnell issued the majority opinion today on behalf of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Circuit Judge Jerome A. Holmes issued a dissenting opinion and voted to affirm the convictions.

“Microsoft Rejected by U.S. High Court on Novell Suit”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News provides this report.

Ninth Circuit decides United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins: In a somewhat surprising development for a forfeiture case, the appellant shark fins emerge on the winning side of this ruling issued today.

“Supreme Court to rule on radio, TV indecency; The justices will decide whether federal regulators may fine broadcasters that let expletives go out on the airwaves in the daytime and early evening”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.

Reuters reports that “Supreme Court to review FCC indecency rule case.”

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “FCC Gets Top U.S. Court Hearing on Expletive Rule.”

“Saudi wields British law against U.S. author; Billionaire leverages harsher libel rules to suppress unflattering book”: James Oliphant has this article today in The Chicago Tribune.

“Pawlenty picks Magnuson as chief justice”: The Minneapolis Star Tribune provides a news update that begins, “Governor Tim Pawlenty is turning to his former law partner to lead the Minnesota Supreme Court. Pawlenty named Eric Magnuson to replace Russell Anderson, who announced last week he would retire in June. Magnuson has been in charge of screening judicial candidates for the governor. He will become the first chief justice without previous experience on the Supreme Court since 1944.”

And The St. Paul Pioneer Press provides a news update headlined “Gov. Pawlenty appoints lawyer to lead Supreme Court.”

You can learn more about Magnuson via his law firm bio.

Eighth Circuit affirms permanent injunction against enforcement of a Minnesota law that prohibits minors from purchasing or renting video games bearing a ‘Mature’ or ‘Adult Only’ rating: A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued this ruling today.

Today’s ruling affirms a decision that Chief Judge James M. Rosenbaum of the U.S. District Court of the District of Minnesota issued on July 31, 2006. I had this post about that federal district court decision on the day it issued.

“Media: High Court, Low Profile.” In the current issue of CQ Weekly, columnist Elizabeth Wasserman has an essay that begins, “When Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. went to a high school government class this month, he was asked if televising oral arguments might help the public understand the court. And his reply succinctly summarized the long-running standoff between the press and the justices.”

“Court Will Examine Profanity Rules”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press provides this report.

The AP also reports that “Court Accepts Crime Lab Case“; “Court to Take Up Voting Rights Suit“; “Court Will Decide Wash. Shooting Case“; and “Justices Turn Down Microsoft Appeal.”

F-word to be spoken at forthcoming U.S. Supreme Court oral argument: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court grants review of indecency law, 7 other cases.” You can access today’s Order List at this link.

C-SPAN continues to provide online access to the video (RealPlayer required) of attorney Carter G. Phillips‘s profanity-laden oral argument presented in this case on December 20, 2006 before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. My coverage of that Second Circuit oral argument appeared in posts which you can access here and here. I covered the Second Circuit’s June 2007 ruling in posts that you can access here, here, and here. And I covered the filing of the federal government’s petition for writ of certiorari in a post that you can access here.