“VA faulted in diagnosing suicide candidates”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “Former soldiers are killing themselves at three to seven times the rate of the general population and the Department of Veterans Affairs is failing to diagnose or treat them effectively, a suicide expert testified Tuesday in a lawsuit challenging the VA’s mental health system.”

“D.C. Circuit Tosses Out FTC’s Antitrust Ruling Against Rambus”: law.com provides this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued yesterday.

“Judge Dismisses 9/11 Suit Against Former Head of E.P.A.” The New York Times contains this article today.

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

“Supreme Court hears Los Angeles case on a killer’s right to confront his victim; Duane Giles’ lawyer says secondhand testimony that he’d threatened his ex-girlfriend wasn’t admissible because the dead woman couldn’t be cross-examined”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “An old adage may not apply.”

In addition, “The Confrontation Blog” has posted two (arguably partisan) accounts of yesterday’s oral argument here and here.

“After Court Ruling, States to Proceed With Executions”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“Justices Hear Case of the ‘Millionaire’s Amendment'”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Justices Assail ‘Millionaires’ Amendment’; Whether Majority Will Junk Measure Is Not Yet Clear.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court considers the ‘millionaire’s amendment’; The campaign finance law provision was intended to level the playing field in political races; A decision in June could affect the fall campaign.”

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Justices split over campaign financing; ’02 law challenged as free speech violation.”

law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “Supreme Court Justices Appear Torn Over ‘Millionaires’ Amendment.’”

And The Wall Street Journal contains an editorial entitled “The Millionaire Ruse.”

“ACLU wins Bible lawsuit; Judge: Distribution during school hours unconstitutional.” The Advocate of Baton Rouge, Louisiana today contains an article that begins, “The Tangipahoa Parish School Board violated the First Amendment by allowing Gideons International to pass out pocket Bibles to Loranger fifth-graders during school hours in May, a federal judge ruled Tuesday. Just hours after the decision became public, the School Board voted 8-0 to seek an appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.”

You can view yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana at this link.

“G.O.P. Set to Block Bill Easing Limits on Pay Discrimination Suits”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “Senate Republicans said on Tuesday that they were confident they would be able to block legislation intended to reverse a Supreme Court ruling last year that established tight time restrictions on lawsuits over pay discrimination.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Pass the Fair Pay Act.”

The Washington Post reports today that “White House Threatens to Veto Discrimination Bill.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Fair Pay, Fair Play: The Senate should restore workers’ ability to sue over pay discrimination, whenever the injustice is discovered.”

And The Los Angeles Times contains an editorial entitled “Congress fights for fair pay: Proving job discrimination is tough, thanks to the Supreme Court; Lawmakers aim to change that.”

“Serial killer Daniel Siebert dies of pancreatic cancer on Alabama’s Death Row; Daughter of New Jersey victim says justice not served”: This article appears today in The Birmingham News.

And The Associated Press reports that “Alabama death row inmate who challenged protocol dies.”

“Court to hear case that could help workers claim benefits”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “When Wanda Glenn first sought disability benefits from MetLife Inc. in 2000, she ‘never in a million years’ expected it would end up as a Supreme Court case. But on Wednesday, the justices will hear oral arguments in a dispute that is being closely watched by insurance companies and business groups. Depending on how the justices rule, the case could make it easier for employees to win health and disability benefit payments in court.”

“Cruel and Unusual History: The Supreme Court has repeatedly ignored the barbaric history of the death penalty.” Gilbert King has this op-ed today in The New York Times.

“Inmate Count in U.S. Dwarfs Other Nations'”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

“Butt out, Judicial Qualifications Commission tells high court”: Saturday’s edition of The St. Petersburg Times contained an article that begins, “No court, not even the state’s highest court, can intervene in the affairs of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, attorneys for the JQC said in a sharply worded brief filed Friday with the Florida Supreme Court. The JQC was responding to an unprecedented effort to get the high court to intervene and block the JQC from proceeding against 1st District Court of Appeal Judge Michael E. Allen.”

You can view the court filings that are the subject of that article here and here.

“Springtime for Judges: Democrats are trying to run out the clock on Bush’s nominees.” This editorial appears today in The Wall Street Journal.

“How to open up our court: Justice Scalia will make a rare TV appearance — but only to peddle his book; The Supreme Court needs to find more innovative ways to lift its cloak of secrecy.” Tony Mauro has this op-ed today in USA Today.

“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.”

“Supreme Court rules Internet user has right to privacy”: The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger provides a news update that begins, “The state Supreme Court ruled today that under the New Jersey Constitution an Internet user has the right to privacy in the subscriber information maintained by the individual’s Internet service provider.”

And The Associated Press reports that “NJ court requires subpoena for Internet subscriber records.”

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