“Writing, Cognition, and the Nature of the Judicial Function”: Law Professor Chad M. Oldfather has this article in the April 2008 issue of The Georgetown Law Journal (via “Concurring Opinions“).

“Rational Judicial Behavior: A Statistical Study.” William M. Landes and Richard A. Posner have posted this article (abstract with links for download) online at SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“).

“Lethal injection: a one-drug alternative?” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“University of Portland to Honor Circuit Judge Edward Leavy”: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this news release yesterday.

D.C. Circuit reinstates lawsuit filed by man seeking a court order requiring the Attorney General to act on the man’s request to renounce his United States citizenship: You can access today’s ruling at this link. In seeking to renounce his citizenship, the man was relying on a statutory provision codified at 8 U.S.C. sec. 1481(a)(6).

“The victim’s voice: Statements by a woman murdered by her boyfriend should be allowed to stand in his conviction.” Today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times contains an editorial that begins, “In a case reminiscent of the story of the boy who killed his parents and then asked for mercy because he was an orphan, the U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to overturn a California man’s murder conviction because the victim’s statements about his violent nature were read in court. The case is legally more complex than the apocryphal story about the orphan, but the principle is the same: A defendant shouldn’t benefit from silencing his accuser.”

“Court says feds don’t have to reveal names”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “The federal government doesn’t have to reveal the names of employees involved in a bungled operation to a private watchdog group that doesn’t trust official investigations of the incident, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.”

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

“Court Orders Tyson to Suspend Ads For Antibiotic-Free Chicken”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “Poultry giant Tyson Foods has 14 days to dismantle a national multimillion dollar ad campaign centered on the claim that its chickens are raised without antibiotics, a federal appeals court in Richmond ruled yesterday.”

And The Baltimore Sun reports today that “Tyson bid denied for stay on pulling drug-free ads.”

I have posted online at this link Wednesday’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

“Notes From the War on Terror”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial that begins, “For more than a year, President Bush has refused to honor legitimate requests from the Democratic majority in Congress for legal documents that he used to justify ordering the abuse, humiliation and torture of prisoners. This week, the Justice Department finally agreed to show some papers to members of the House and Senate. Sounds like good news? Not so much.”

“Al Jazeera TV journalist released; At Guantanamo, a long-held Arab cable news journalist was freed, while a military judge denied a Canadian captive’s ‘child soldier’ defense”: Carol Rosenberg has this article today in The Miami Herald.

And The New York Times reports today that “Cameraman Is Released From Guantanamo.”

“Teacher fired for refusing to sign loyalty oath; Cal State system ousts another instructor who objects on religious grounds to a pledge adopted by California in 1952 to root out communists”: The Los Angeles Times contains this front page article today.

“McCain’s Birth Abroad Stirs Legal Debate; His Eligibility for Presidency Is Questioned”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“False Claims Gold Rush”: The Wall Street Journal today contains an editorial that begins, “Imagine handing the tort bar a huge new lawsuit business, funded with dollars owed to taxpayers. Imagine that those doing this favor are Senate Democrats and Republicans. Welcome to the legal gold rush occurring under the cover of ‘reforming’ the False Claims Act.”

“The verdict on ‘Thurgood’: It’s excellent.” This theater review appears today in USA Today.

“Amazon.com Sues To Strike Down New N.Y. Tax Law”: Today in The New York Sun, Joseph Goldstein has an article that begins, “Amazon.com is fighting back with a lawsuit trying to strike down New York state’s new law forcing the online retailer to collect sales taxes on the state’s behalf. The dispute, which is before a state court in Manhattan, is heading toward a constitutional showdown that will center on whether New York State is hindering interstate commerce by imposing on out-of-state companies, such as Amazon.com, the burden of serving as a tax collector for New York.”

And The New York Times reports today that “Amazon Sues Over State Law on Collection of Sales Tax.”

“Giuliani’s Next Campaign: Appellate Limelight; Recent key additions signal bid to take on established players.” This article appears in this week’s issue of The National Law Journal.

“Overpaid Judges”: The New York Sun today contains an editorial that begins, “If the judges in the State of New York want to understand why the people of the State of New York haven’t raised their pay in nearly a generation, let them study the decision handed down this week by Judge Jonathan Lippman in the case involving the first bombing of the World Trade Center. It’s hard to recall a decision that is more outrageous. Judge Lippman, whom Governor Spitzer appointed to the First Department, upheld the notion that the Port Authority was 68% liable for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, while the terrorists were only 32% liable.”

And yesterday in that newspaper, Theodore Frank had a related op-ed entitled “Blame Port Authority.”

My earlier coverage of the ruling appears at this link.

“Woman can sue Marshall over ban on dancing”: Yesterday’s edition of The Ashville (N.C.) Citizen-Times contained an article that begins, “A Madison County woman banned seven years ago from a Marshall dance hall on allegations that her gyrations were sexually suggestive has won the right to take her lawsuit against the town to trial. A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., issued a ruling Wednesday overturning the 2003 dismissal of Rebecca Willis’ lawsuit. The decision means the case can proceed to trial on the question of whether the town violated her constitutional right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment by singling her out and banning her for life from the town’s public music arena, said her attorney, Jon Sasser, of Raleigh.” The article also features a photograph of the plaintiff.

My earlier coverage of Wednesday’s Fourth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Significant risks: Gonzales v Carhart and the future of abortion law.” Pulitzer Prize-winning historian David J. Garrow will have this interesting essay as the lead piece in this year’s issue of The Supreme Court Review.

“Behind the Delays in Confirming Judges: What the partisan battles mean to Bush’s legal legacy.” Emma Schwartz has this article online at U.S. News & World Report.

CQ Politics reports that “Leahy’s Action on Judges Not What Senate Republicans Had in Mind.”

And at “The Swamp” blog of The Chicago Tribune, James Oliphant has a post titled “Showdown over federal judges looming.”

“Marshal faces World Series investigation; Deputies allegedly drove Fox announcers to Fenway”: The Boston Globe today contains an article that begins, “Federal authorities are investigating whether the head of the US Marshals Service in Boston assigned deputy marshals, normally charged with tracking fugitives and protecting judges, to ferry Fox Sports broadcasters Tim McCarver and Joe Buck between their hotel and Fenway Park during last year’s World Series. The Justice Department’s office of the inspector general in Boston is looking into whether Yvonne Bonner overstepped her authority as acting US Marshal in Boston or violated any ethics rules by allegedly ordering her deputies to essentially serve as private taxi drivers, according to two law enforcement officials and other people familiar with the investigation.”

“Ore. court rejects medical costs claim on tobacco industry”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The same Oregon court that slapped Big Tobacco with a huge punitive damages award has handed the industry a victory by rejecting a class-action lawsuit for medical monitoring costs in a case where harm had yet to occur. Oregon’s high court ruled unanimously Thursday that smokers must show actual harm to make a negligence claim against cigarette manufacturers – not just the possibility they will be harmed.”

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

“6th Circuit to Rehear Major NCLB Case”: At “The School Law Blog” of Education Week, Mark Walsh has a post that begins, “A federal appeals court today agreed to re-examine a ruling by a panel of the court that revived a lawsuit challenging the No Child Left Behind Act for imposing unfunded mandates on states and school districts.”

Today’s order grants rehearing en banc of a ruling that a divided three-judge panel issued in January 2008. My earlier coverage of that ruling appears at this link.

“Fourth Circuit Decides Two Important Campaign Finance Cases, Raising Issues that Could Get En Banc or Supreme Court Attention”: Law Professor Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law” blog.

Unanimous three-judge Fourth Circuit panel rejects constitutional challenge to North Carolina’s system of voluntary public financing for candidates seeking election to that state’s appellate courts: Attorney James Bopp, Jr. was on the winning side of the case mentioned in the post immediately below, but Bopp ends up on the losing side of this ruling, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit also issued today.

The judge who wrote the dissenting opinion in the decision discussed immediately below wrote the opinion of the court rejecting the challenge to the public financing of campaigns for appellate judgeships. He was the only judge involved in these two rulings who served on both panels.

Divided three-judge Fourth Circuit panel holds unconstitutional various provisions of North Carolina’s law governing the financing of political campaigns: You can access today’s ruling, on a challenge brought by the organization North Carolina Right to Life, Inc., at this link.

“Federal appeals court won’t yet overturn ‘Plan B’ ruling”: Reuters provides a report that begins, “A federal appeals court on Thursday left in place a lower court’s ruling that allowed Washington state pharmacists to refuse to sell emergency contraceptive ‘morning after’ pills on religious grounds.”

You can access today’s order of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

After all, the case did involve trying to recoup from the federal government the value of lost medication to facilitate weight loss and to prevent baldness and erectile dysfunction: The price of liberty can be steep, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today reminds AmeriSource Corporation.

The concluding paragraph of an opinion that a unanimous three-judge Federal Circuit panel issued today begins, “It is unfair that any one citizen or small group of citizens should have to bear alone the burden of the administration of a justice system that benefits us all. But the war memorials only a short distance from the Federal Circuit courthouse remind us that individuals have from time to time paid a dearer price for liberties we all enjoy.”

Accordingly, the Federal Circuit has today affirmed the rejection of AmeriSource’s request to recover $150,826.26 from the federal government, representing the lost value of Viagra, Propecia, and Xenacil that the federal government seized in a criminal investigation.

“Alleged Driver for Bin Laden Boycotts Military Hearing”: The Washington Post contains this article today.

And today in The Miami Herald, Carol Rosenberg reports that “Bin Laden’s driver can send notes to detainees.”

“Closing Arguments in Suit on Veterans’ Mental Care”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

And today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Vets’ case rests with call to overhaul system.”

“Dead soldiers’ parents seek class action for T-shirt lawsuit”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A Tennessee couple who lost their son in Iraq want an Arizona merchant to pay more than $40 billion in damages to survivors of soldiers whose names are on the anti-war shirts he is selling online. A complaint seeking class-action status for the lawsuit by Robin and Michael Read says Dan Frazier of Flagstaff has no right to profit from commercial sale of products that use the dead soldiers’ names without permission.”

And last Friday, The Arizona Republic reported that “Tenn. family sues maker of war T-shirt.”

“Justice Dept. Will Share Interrogation Opinions”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “In a partial concession to Congressional pressure, the Bush administration agreed on Wednesday to show the Senate and House Intelligence Committees secret Justice Department legal opinions justifying harsh interrogation techniques that critics call torture.”

And The Washington Post reports today that “Lawmakers to See Secret Documents.”

John P. Elwood, deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, was the Justice Department’s representative who testified at yesterday’s hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee‘s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights. The title of yesterday’s hearing was “Secret Law and the Threat to Democratic and Accountable Government.” You can view video of the hearing by clicking here (RealPlayer required).

“U.S. Appeals Court Rejects City’s Suit to Curb Guns”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

Today in The New York Sun, Joseph Goldstein reports that “Bloomberg Anti-Gun Suit Suffers a Blow.”

The New York Daily News reports that “Appeals court dismisses NYC’s suit against gun makers.”

The New York Post reports that “City suit misfires; Gun makers win.”

And law.com reports that “2nd Circuit Dismisses NYC’s Suit Against Gun Manufacturers; Gun makers found insulated under U.S. law.”

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

“Trials and Triumphs on the Road to Justice”: The New York Times today contains this review of the new play “Thurgood,” which officially opened on Broadway last night. The review calls the play “surprisingly absorbing, at times even stirring.”

And a review from Hollywood Reporter via Reuters is headlined “Fishburne wins case in rather dry ‘Thurgood.’”

“Law Professor Accuses Students of Defamation”: This article appears today in The New York Times.