“3rd Circuit’s Chief Judge to Head Inquiry Into Actions of 9th Circuit’s Kozinski”: law.com’s Shannon P. Duffy has this report.

And Jaikumar Vijayan of Computerworld has an article headlined “Federal judge a victim of privacy breach or poor judgment? Depends (perhaps) on what you’re calling a Web site.”

“Guantanamo war crimes court back in session”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Copyright ruling is blow to Utah company”: Pamela Manson of The Salt Lake Tribune has a news update that begins, “Hired to create depictions of Toyota vehicles for the automotive giant’s advertising campaign, a small Utah company used the relatively new technology of digital modeling. After 80 to 100 hours of effort per vehicle, Meshwerks produced two-dimensional wire-frame depictions that appear three-dimensional on screen. The idea was to create a product that resembled each car or truck model as closely as possible for use on the Toyota Web site and in other media. The resulting unadorned images, which had no color, shading or other details, were accurate. So accurate that a federal court has ruled these depictions have no right to copyright protection.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, written by Circuit Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, at this link.

Today is day three of the McClatchy Newspapers series “Guantanamo: Beyond the Law.” Today’s lead article is headlined “Militants found recruits among Guantanamo’s wrongly detained.” And today’s other articles are headlined “Ex-detainees allege that U.S. troops abused Quran” and “Documents confirm U.S. hid detainees from Red Cross.”

You can access the articles from the first two days of this series via my earlier posts here and here.

“Appeals court upholds 24-month prison sentence for former Westar Energy CEO in bank fraud case”: The Associated Press provides this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued today.

And at his “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog, Doug Berman has a post titled “Third time’s (almost) the charm in Tenth Circuit sentencing case.”

“The Supreme Court Goes to War”: Law Professor John Yoo has this op-ed today in The Wall Street Journal.

“Who Wants to Be an Appellate Law Blogger”: This afternoon, at my wife’s urging, I traveled to New York City to audition to be a contestant on season seven of the syndicated game show “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.”

For those who are concerned about whether the author of this blog has an adequate grasp of trivia, I’m pleased to report that I passed the written test portion of the audition and thus was interviewed by one of the show’s producers to evaluate “personality.” The process was a lot of fun, and I thank another person who passed the written test — a woman who lives near Seattle — who kindly volunteered to me that the first thing she thought upon seeing me was that I look like someone who should be on the show.

The results of the interviews are not immediately disclosed at the audition, but, if I also “passed” the interview, I will be receiving a postcard in a few weeks advising that I’m in the contestant pool for this season. And then I can begin to evaluate whether I might be fortunate enough to have a certain public intellectual and prolific author based in Chicago agree to serve as one of my “phone-a-friends.”

If any readers of this post have any questions about the audition process, feel free to ask me about it via email. Finally, it would take a lot more than one million dollars to cause me to walk away from this blog, so fans of this blog have nothing to fear, while critics of this blog are urged to start raising extreme amounts of money immediately.

Programming note: A trip to New York City is on the agenda for this afternoon. Additional posts will appear here this evening.

“US court: New trial for official in Abramoff scandal.” The Associated Press provides this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

According to the Second Circuit’s chief judge, that court’s “occluded view of our discretion to sit in banc runs counter to the criteria set down for our guidance in Rule 35.” It is notoriously difficult to obtain rehearing en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, as I noted recently in this post reporting on the concurrences in and dissents from that court’s denial of rehearing en banc in Ricci v. DeStefano.

The Second Circuit’s order from last Thursday noted that additional concurrences and dissents might be forthcoming, and indeed they have been, Yesterday, Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi issued this concurrence. And today, Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs has issued this must-read dissent harshly criticizing the Second Circuit’s notorious reluctance to grant rehearing en banc.

“Judge Kozinski’s Dutch Uncles”: Tony Mauro has this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.” Tony’s post links to: the Ninth Circuit‘s Judicial Council’s order asking the Chief Justice to transfer the misconduct proceeding involving that circuit’s Chief Judge, Alex Kozinski, to another circuit; the Chief Justice’s letter assigning the proceeding to the Third Circuit; and a news release announcing the five judges whom the chair of the Judicial Council of the Third Circuit appointed as a special committee to investigate the matter.

And the blog “Patterico’s Pontifications” today has a lengthy post titled “Cyrus Sanai Responds.”

“Covering The Court: Members of the Supreme Court press corps reviewed major decisions from the 2007-2008 Term, examined trends in Supreme Court jurisprudence, and looked towards the future.” Via this link, you can access lots of interesting video of the programs that occurred at this past weekend’s 2008 American Constitution Society National Convention in Washington, D.C.

The video of the program that is the title of this post, which David Lat covered yesterday in this post at “Above the Law,” can be viewed by clicking here (Windows Media Player required).

“Court to Hear Challenge From Muslims Held After 9/11”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.

Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Court to Rule In Suit Against Ashcroft, Others.”

In The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that “Supreme Court to rule on whether Ashcroft can be sued; A Pakistani man who was arrested after the Sept. 11 attacks says he was illegally detained and beaten; The justices will examine whether high-ranking officials are immune from such lawsuits.”

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Court to decide whether top officials can be sued; Ex-detainee seeks to sue Ashcroft, FBI chief.”

law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “High Court Will Hear Case Against Ashcroft Over Post-9/11 Detention.”

And in The Christian Science Monitor, Warren Richey has an article headlined “New legal fight over U.S. antiterror tactics; The Supreme Court agrees to examine if high-level officials can be sued for harsh policies.”

“Court rules aliens who overstay can remain to appeal”: This article appears today in The Washington Times.

“Pa. High Court Revives Abuse of Process Claim”: Today in The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers, Amaris Elliott-Engel has an article (subscription required) that begins, “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision that found an insurance company and its law firm’s guardianship petition regarding a child whose parents would not accept a $7 million settlement offer was not an abuse of process.”

As I noted in this recent earlier post, I represented the plaintiffs in successfully seeking review and a reversal from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

“Grand Juries Become Latest Abortion Battlefield”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

“East Coast panel to oversee misconduct probe of California Judge Alex Kozinski; The U.S. 3rd Circuit names a special panel to investigate possible misconduct of federal jurist Alex Kozinski”: Scott Glover has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

And also from that newspaper, Lara A. Bazelon has an online-only op-ed entitled “Kozinski disciplines himself; The misconduct standards the porn-collecting judge advocated might now be used against him.”