“The Justices Deliver Fuzzy Ruling: Supreme Court’s 9 Judges Offer 7 (Weak) Opinions On Lethal Injection Case.” CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen has this essay.

Two reviews of two recent books written by Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner: Today at National Review Online, Edward Whelan has an essay entitled “How Judge Posner Thinks Judges Should Think: An unpersuasive case for pragmatism.” Ed’s essay reviews Judge Posner’s newest book, “How Judges Think.” You can access a lengthy excerpt from the book by clicking here.

And in the April 2008 issue of the Michigan Law Review, Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt has this review of Judge Posner’s book, “Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency.”

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “CIA: Destroyed videos likely not covered by court order” and “Wis. Supreme Court lets ‘shaken baby’ ruling stand.”

“Case and law hinge on taped words; SJC ruling could shift wiretap limits”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.

“Wecht judge says he won’t step aside; Criticizes defense attorneys and refuses to delay retrial”: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today contains an article that begins, “The federal judge presiding in the case against Dr. Cyril H. Wecht yesterday refused to delay a retrial and said he would not recuse himself. In his order, U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab also defended his conduct during the first trial while lambasting defense attorneys for theirs since the jury deadlocked last week and a mistrial was declared.”

I have posted online at this link yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

And today in The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Jason Cato reports that “Coalition urges end to Wecht case.” You can view the group’s letter at this link.

“White House backs appeal on S.F. health care”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “The Bush administration is backing restaurant owners in their challenge to San Francisco’s groundbreaking health coverage program before a federal appeals court that will hear the case today.”

“Supreme Court debates execution in child rape case”: This article appears today in The Times-Picayune of New Orleans.

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers reports that “Supreme Court ponders death for rapists of children.”

And at FindLaw, Marci Hamilton has an essay entitled “The Supreme Court Considers Whether Imposing the Death Penalty for Child Rape Is Constitutional: The Arguments For and Against the Penalty.”

“Definition of rape widened; Consent can be revoked in mid-act, judges rule”: The Baltimore Sun today contains an article that begins, “The state’s highest court ruled yesterday that a man can be charged with rape if he ignores a woman’s calls to stop – even if she had previously consented to sex. With this expansion of the legal definition of rape, Maryland joins seven other states whose courts have determined that a woman can revoke her consent after intercourse begins.”

And The Washington Post reports today that “In Reversal of ’06 Decision, Rape Can Be Charged if Consent Is Withdrawn.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s ruling of the Court of Appeals of Maryland appears at this link.

“U.S. to Expand Collection Of Crime Suspects’ DNA; Policy Adds People Arrested but Not Convicted”: This front page article appears today in The Washington Post.

“ACLU gets damages over portrait; Group also awarded fees in Slidell case”: The Times-Picayune of New Orleans today contains an article that begins, “A federal judge on Wednesday agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana that a decision by Slidell officials to hang a portrait of Jesus on the wall at Slidell City Court was unlawful. It awarded the organization nominal damages as well as attorneys fees for its role in a lawsuit filed last summer. The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle provides the ACLU with $1 in damages and paves the way for the ACLU to collect the fees it incurred when it sued the court, Judge Jim Lamz, the city of Slidell and St. Tammany Parish.”

I have posted online at this link yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

“Justices Uphold Lethal Injection in Kentucky Case”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times. Adam Liptak reports that “Challenges Remain for Lethal Injection.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “The Supreme Court Fine-Tunes Pain.”

Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has articles headlined”Justices Uphold Lethal Injection Procedure; Split Reasoning Opens Door to New Challenges” and “In Reversal, Stevens Says He Opposes Death Penalty.”

In The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that “Supreme Court finds lethal injections a humane means of execution; The 7-2 ruling shows strong support for the death penalty among justices and sets a high bar for future challenges.” And Maura Dolan reports that “Executions still on hold in California; The U.S. Supreme Court ruling aside, the state faces a number of legal hurdles before it can resume capital punishment.”

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Justices split hairs over death penalty case; Ky. ruling leaves room for future tests of issue.” The newspaper also contains articles headlined “High court clears way to restart lethal injections” and “States move on executions; Ala., Va. could resume penalty in about a month.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Court upholds lethal injection; The 7-to-2 ruling is expected to end a de facto moratorium on executions nationwide.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Upholds Lethal Injections.”

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Lethal injections ruled not cruel punishment.”

law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “Supreme Court Upholds Kentucky’s Lethal Injections; Stevens becomes first member of high court to openly oppose capital punishment since Blackmun’s 1994 retirement.”

The Washington Times reports that “Court upholds lethal injection.”

The Louisville Courier-Journal contains an article headlined “States can resume executions after ruling; Court: Punishment isn’t cruel, unusual.”

The Lexington Herald-Leader reports that “Lethal injection method upheld; Kentucky inmates’ appeal rejected.”

The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that “Executions likely to resume soon; Governor lifts moratorium after court rejects challenge to lethal-injection method.”

The Baltimore Sun reports that “Justices uphold lethal method; Republican leaders urge O’Malley to act on Md. executions.”

Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “Justices’ decision won’t end debate over lethal injection in California; Supreme Court upholds method used in state.”

The Sacramento Bee reports that “Supreme Court backs death penalty, but outcome for California is unclear.”

The Press-Enterprise of Riverside, California reports that “High court permits lethal injection; Supreme Court decision ends a moratorium in many states — but not this one.”

The Houston Chronicle reports that “Harris County gets ready to execute 6 killers.”

The Austin American-Statesman reports that “Texas’ death chamber expected to reopen quickly; High court ruling in Kentucky case upholds use of lethal injections.”

The Dallas Morning News reports that “Supreme Court clears way for lethal injections to resume.”

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that “High court ruling sets stage for executions to resume in Texas.”

The Miami Herald reports that “Death Row executions to proceed; Florida officials rushed to ramp up executions in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a Kentucky case that upheld lethal injections.”

The St. Petersburg Times reports that “U.S. Supreme Court upholds lethal injection.”

The Birmingham News reports that “Alabama Attorney General Troy King says he’ll move quickly to resume executions.”

The Mobile Press-Register reports that “Death penalty method upheld; Alabama, other states could soon resume lethal injections after ruling by U.S. Supreme Court.”

The Arizona Republic reports that “High court clears way to resume executions.”

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that “Death penalty method upheld.”

And James Oliphant of The Chicago Tribune reports that “Stevens new foe of death penalty; Senior justice voices doubt that executions act as a deterrent.”

“The Democrats and Gun Control: Don’t believe it when Barack and Hillary say they respect the Second Amendment.” David Kopel has this op-ed today in The Wall Street Journal.

“No need for a shield: Bill would put reporters above the law, cause ‘grave consequences.'” Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey has this op-ed today in USA Today.

And today in The Washington Post, columnist Robert D. Novak has an op-ed entitled “On the Shield Law, Good News and Bad.”

Available online from National Public Radio: This evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Justices Rule Lethal Injection Is Constitutional” featuring Nina Totenberg.

Today’s broadcast of “Day to Day” contained an audio segment entitled “Supreme Court Upholds Lethal Injection” featuring Dahlia Lithwick.

And today’s broadcast of “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “High Court Upholds Kentucky’s Execution Injections.”

RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Supreme Court Allows Lethal Injection for Execution”: Linda Greenhouse will have this article Thursday in The New York Times.

“The Capital Gang: The Supreme Court jump-starts the machinery of death.” Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

“Top Md. court rules on sexual consent case; Rape charge can be brought if consent is withdrawn during sex, court rules”: The Baltimore Sun provides a news update that begins, “The state’s highest court ruled this morning that a man can be charged with rape if he ignores a woman’s calls to stop — even if she had previously consented to the sex. Maryland now joins seven other states whose courts have concluded that a woman can revoke her consent after intercourse begins. The Court of Appeals’ conclusion on the controversial matter — one paragraph of a 76-page ruling in a complex rape case from Montgomery County — overturns existing common law and its own 1980 opinion.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Court of Appeals of Maryland at this link.

“Justices skeptical of challenge to La. child rape law”: The Times-Picayune of New Orleans provides this news update.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Limit may be imposed on death penalty for child rape.”

“Supreme Court allows lethal injection in executions”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers provides this report.

The Louisville Courier-Journal provides a news update headlined “High court upholds Ky. lethal injection method.”

Adam Liptak of The New York Times has a news update headlined “Litigation Assured in Wake of Decision.”

Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “California may resume executions by year’s end; The Supreme Court’s ruling that lethal injections can be used on inmates could speed up some proceedings in the state; California’s last execution was in early 2006.”

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update headlined “High court ruling could clear way for California executions to resume.”

And The Washington Post provides a news update headlined “Va. Governor Reinstates Executions After Ruling.”

“Stevens declares opposition to death penalty”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press provides this report.

Two judges dissent from the First Circuit’s denial of rehearing en banc to consider whether AEDPA unconstitutionally limits a federal court’s ability to grant habeas relief: You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denying rehearing en banc, and the dissent from that order, at this link.

Access online the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Kennedy v. Louisiana, No. 07-343: The Court has posted it online at this link.

In coverage of the oral argument, Pete Yost of The Associated Press reports that “Seemingly divided court considers death for child rapists.”

“Justice Stevens Turns Against Capital Punishment”: Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

And at “The Swamp” blog of The Chicago Tribune, James Oliphant has posts titled “Justice Stevens’ change of heart” and “Court rules injection method legal.”

“Should child rapists face death penalty? The high court will decide if execution for a Louisiana child rapist is constitutional.” Warren Richey has this article today in The Christian Science Monitor.

“Supreme Court upholds executions by lethal injection; The decision, supported by a majority of the justices, clears the way for such methods to resume across the country”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

The Washington Post provides a news update headlined “Supreme Court Upholds Use of Lethal Injection.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Use of Lethal Injection.”

And James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Supreme court clears way for executions to resume.”

The Associated Press is reporting: Mark Sherman reports that “Supreme Court upholds Kentucky’s use of lethal injections.”

The AP also provides articles headlined “Court rules DUI does not count as violent felony“; “Court rules in favor of prosecutors in cocaine case“; and “5 Supreme Court justices on White House guest list.”

Access online today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court: The Court today issued three opinions in argued cases.

1. Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in Begay v. United States, No. 06-11543. The Chief Justice and Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined in the opinion of the Court. Justice Antonin Scalia issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices David H. Souter and Clarence Thomas joined. You can access the decision at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

2. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Burgess v. United States, No. 06-11429. You can access the decision at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

3. Today’s third and final opinion issued in the case of Baze v. Rees, No. 07-5439. The Chief Justice announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which Justices Kennedy and Alito joined. Justice Alito also filed a concurring opinion. Justice Stevens filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Thomas also filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Scalia joined. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Souter joined. You can access the decision at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link. And via C-SPAN, you can access the audio of this oral argument by clicking here (RealPlayer required).

“Lethal injection allowed”: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post that begins, “In a widely splintered decision, the Supreme Court cleared the way for executions to resume across the country, concluding that the most common method of lethal injection does not violate the Constitution.”

“Court: Drunk driving not a violent felony.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

Available online from National Public Radio: Today’s broadcast of “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “Justices Weigh Death Penalty for Child Rape” featuring Nina Totenberg.

Yesterday’s broadcast of “Day to Day” contained an audio segment entitled “Supreme Court Weighs Death Penalty for Rapists” featuring Dahlia Lithwick.

And yesterday’s broadcast of “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “Justices Weigh Deviation from Sentencing Guidelines” featuring Nina Totenberg.

RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Court upholds female guard’s harassment award”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “A federal appeals court has upheld $600,000 in damages to a state prison guard who said she was fired after complaining that she was being harassed by naked male inmates.”

Last Friday’s non-precedential ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit consisted of both a majority opinion and a dissenting opinion.

“Bush, Mich. senators end fed judge fight”: The Detroit News contains this article today.

And The Detroit Free Press reports today that “White House nominates 2 for courts.”

“The Free Flow of Information: It’s time for a vote on a federal shield law.” This editorial appears today in The Washington Post.

“Praying coach is rebuffed by court; Federal appellate judges support East Brunswick”: The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger today contains an article that begins, “A decision by East Brunswick’s football coach to bow his head and kneel during student-led pre-game prayers represents an endorsement of religious activity at a public school event and the township’s board of education was justified in stopping him, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.”

The New York Times reports today that “Coach in New Jersey Cannot Pray With Players.”

The Home News Tribune of Neptune, New Jersey reports that “Football coach may take prayer fight higher.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Court says coach can’t kneel, bow head as team prays.”

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

“All Rise! A Centenarian Will Analyze the Supreme Court.” In today’s edition of The New York Times, Jim Dwyer has this installment of his “About New York” column.