“Court Tosses Suit Over School Speech”: The Associated Press provides this report.

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

Available online from law.com: Shannon P. Duffy reports that “$412 Million in Attorney Fees Awarded to Plaintiffs Lawyers in Fen-Phen Litigation.”

And in other news, “Bush Lawyers Seek the Next Soft Landing; While some Bush lawyers nab law firm jobs, others eye options.”

“S.F. ban on handguns dealt a final defeat”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update that begins, “The state Supreme Court dealt a final blow Wednesday to San Francisco’s voter-approved ban on handguns, rejecting the city’s appeal of a lower-court ruling that sharply limited the ability of localities to regulate firearms.”

“Memo Proves Detention Is Illegal, Attorneys Say”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “An accused ‘enemy combatant’ told an appellate court yesterday that a controversial Justice Department memorandum exploring the legal boundaries of military interrogations proves that his detention was illegal.”

Yesterday, “SCOTUSblog” posted the court filing at this link.

“New Roadblocks Delay Tribunals at Guantanamo”: This article will appear Thursday in The New York Times.

Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has a news update headlined “Saudi terror suspect: Military trials a ‘sham.’”

And Carol J. Williams of The Los Angeles Times provides a news update headlined “Guantanamo prisoner denounces war-crime trial; The brother-in-law of a 9/11 hijacker tells a military judge that the terror conspiracy case against him is a sham and has himself removed from the courtroom.”

“Majority thought Wecht was innocent, juror says”: Jason Cato has this article today in The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Today’s edition of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette contains articles headlined “Many questions surround Wecht retrial, set for May” and “Wecht supporters criticize prosecution decision to retry.”

And The New York Times today contains an article headlined “Hung Jury in Case of Noted Coroner, but He’ll Be Retried.”

“Set to Return, Chief Justice Creates a Test for Pakistan”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

Over the dissent of seven judges, Ninth Circuit rejects rehearing en banc of decision immunizing from prosecution under 18 U.S.C. sec. 1001 false statements made by a criminal defendant to a probation officer preparing that defendant’s presentence report: You can access today’s order denying rehearing en banc, accompanied by a concurrence and two dissents, by clicking here.

My coverage of the original divided three-judge panel’s ruling, from July 2007, appears at this link.

Federal Circuit rejects claim for overtime pay sought by federal Bureau of Prisons employees: You can access today’s ruling at this link.

“In a wide-ranging discussion with seniors from the Thomas Jefferson High School in Alexandria, VA, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia reiterates his opposition to cameras in the U.S. Supreme Court”: C-SPAN has made available for on-demand viewing (click here; RealPlayer required) today’s appearance by Justice Antonin Scalia as part of that network’s “Students and Leaders” program.

Joan Biskupic of USA Today provides a news update headlined “Scalia tells students he kept ‘nose to the grindstone.’”

And at “The Swamp” blog of The Chicago Tribune, James Oliphant has a post titled “No to cameras, yes to ’60 Minutes.’”

Seventh Circuit holds that Arthur Andersen is not entitled to insurance coverage for lawsuits brought by retirees seeking to enforce pension benefit rights: Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook issued this decision today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel.

“Ky. District Wins Challenge to Anti-Harassment Policy”: Mark Walsh has this post today at “The School Law Blog” of Education Week.

Today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, by a 2-1 margin, reaches an opposite result from the one that the same three-judge panel reached in the same case, by a 2-1 margin, in October 2007. My coverage of the October 2007 ruling can be accessed here. On panel rehearing, a U.S. District Judge sitting by designation changed his mind regarding the outcome of the case.

Programming note: I will be in court this morning on a client matter. Additional posts will appear here this afternoon.

“Supreme Court Muni-Bond Delay Has Lawyers, Markets Puzzling”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News provides this report.

“Appellate ruling favors drug firms in lawsuits”: The Philadelphia Inquirer today contains a front page article that begins, ” federal appeals panel in Philadelphia backed the pharmaceutical industry’s arguments yesterday that it should be insulated from certain lawsuits. The 2-1 opinion said drugmakers could not be blamed for the suicides of two people on antidepressants whose families claimed that the drug’s warning labels were not strong enough. While narrowly written, the decision was a clear victory for drugmakers and Bush administration officials, who want scientists at the Food and Drug Administration, not lay juries, deciding what drug labels should say. Lawyers for the plaintiffs countered that the FDA was outgunned and poorly funded at best and that lawsuits represented an important check on the system and a last attempt for injured victims to get redress.”

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