“Justices Hear Campaign Finance Case”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

A motion for reconsideration of an order denying or granting class certification, if filed more than ten days after the issuance of that order, does not extend the time for seeking interlocutory appellate review of the order: A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued this ruling today.

“U.S. justices question law on self-funded candidates”: James Vicini of Reuters provides this report.

“‘Millionaire Amendment’ in trouble?” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

At his “Election Law” blog, Law Professor Rick Hasen has a post titled “Davis v. FEC: Splitting the Baby?”

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “Justice Scalia and the Price of Homes.”

“Court overturns government’s ruling against Rambus”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “An appeals court on Tuesday overruled a decision by the Federal Trade Commission that Rambus Inc. violated antitrust law, sending the computer-chip designer’s shares up almost 4 percent.”

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

The Associated Press is reporting: Mark Sherman reports that “Supreme Court reviews ‘millionaire’s amendment.’” The U.S. Supreme Court has posted online at this link the transcript of today’s oral argument in Davis v. Federal Election Comm’n, No. 07-320.

And Pete Yost reports that “Justices question use of dead woman’s statements at trial.” The U.S. Supreme Court has posted online at this link the transcript of today’s oral argument in Giles v. California, No. 07-6053.

Better late than never? A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today issued an order that states, in full:

The Government’s unopposed motion to amend the opinion is GRANTED. The opinion published at 451 F.3d 578 (9th Cir. 2006) is amended to delete all mentions of the name “Keith Vercauteren.” Accordingly, the phrase “In September 2003, Assistant United States Attorney Keith Vercauteren (“AUSA Vercauteren”) . . . ” shall be amended to read, “In September 2003, an Assistant United States Attorney (“the AUSA”) . . . ” All subsequent references to “AUSA Vercauteren” shall be amended to read, “the AUSA.”

As that order reveals, the opinion being amended today issued in 2006 (June 26, 2006, to be precise), and therefore presumably thousands of bound versions of the Federal Reporter (Third Series) permanently contain (and will continue to contain, despite today’s order) Keith Vercauteren’s name. Until today, however, his name had not previously appeared here at “How Appealing.”

“Supreme Court – The Hottest Docket in Town; Firms Clamor to Be Among the Few To Go Before the Nation’s Final Arbiter”: Brent Kendall has this very interesting front page article today in The Daily Journal of California.

“NY appeals court: Whitman not liable in Sept. 11 air case.” The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Former EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman cannot be held liable for telling residents near the World Trade Center site that the air was safe to breathe after the 2001 terrorist attacks, a federal appeals court said Tuesday.”

And at the blog “Wait A Second!” Stephen Bergstein has a post titled “9/11 health claim against Whitman fails.”

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

“Laptops fair game for airport customs searches”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “Customs agents at U.S. airports don’t need any evidence of wrongdoing to search the contents of passengers’ laptop computers, a federal appeals court ruled Monday. Reinstating child pornography evidence against a passenger at Los Angeles International Airport, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said a computer is no different from a suitcase, a car or any other piece of property subject to search at an international border.”

And law.com reports that “9th Circuit OKs Border Guards’ Search of Traveler’s Laptop.”

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

“VA stalling on care, judge told at S.F. trial”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Class-action suit against Veterans Affairs opens; E-mails noting high rate of veteran suicide are shown, but agency says it is doing its best to provide healthcare.”

And The New York Times contains an article headlined “In Federal Suit, 2 Views of Veterans’ Health Care.”

“Justices Turn Down 11 Death Row Appeals”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

“High Court to Hear Uranium Case; Bethesda’s USEC Argues to Impose Anti-Dumping Duties on French Firm”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post.

“Detainees Allege Being Drugged, Questioned; U.S. Denies Using Injections for Coercion”: The Washington Post today contains a front page article that begins, “Adel al-Nusairi remembers his first six months at Guantanamo Bay as this: hours and hours of questions, but first, a needle.”

“Appellate Argument: An Artist’s View.” Today’s edition of The New York Times contains this new installment of Adam Liptak’s “Sidebar” column. It begins, “For three days last week, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. heard arguments in a real court in Washington. Then he came to New York to preside over a fake one — the finals of the moot court competition at Columbia Law School.”

“4th Circuit Ruling Stalls Probe of Saudi Money Transfer”: Joseph Goldstein has this article today in The New York Sun.

You can access at this link yesterday’s non-precedential ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

“High Court Weighs Campaign Finance Amendment”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

Today in The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein reports that “9 Will Hear Campaign-Finance Case.”

And The Washington Post contains an editorial entitled “No Seats for Sale: The Supreme Court should uphold the ‘Millionaires’ Amendment’ governing congressional races.”

“A defendant’s right to confront accusers: How far does it extend? The Supreme Court’s answer could affect some murder, domestic-abuse, and child-molestation cases.” Warren Richey has this article today in The Christian Science Monitor.

“Justice Thomas, Husker Helper”: Tony Mauro has this post (accompanied by this photo) at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”