“On the reshaped Supreme Court, O’Connor’s legacy is fading away; Without her, it turns to the right on key issues”: Joan Biskupic has this front page article today in USA Today.

“9th Circuit Taps Special Prosecutor for Toxic-Tort Case”: law.com provides a report that begins, “A special master has already recommended that attorneys Thomas Girardi and Walter Lack pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in sanctions, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals isn’t done with them yet. On Monday, a three-judge panel appointed a special prosecutor to determine the proper discipline for the Los Angeles-based plaintiffs attorneys in connection with a string of errors in a toxic-tort case against Dow Chemical Co. and other companies.”

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

“Court will again hear Portland widow’s case; The U.S. Supreme Court takes up a $79.5 million judgment against Philip Morris”: Today in The Oregonian, Ashbel S. Green has this article, in which I am quoted.

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Top court to hear Philip Morris damages appeal.”

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Altria Gets High Court Hearing on $79.5 Million Award.”

“Justices Reject ‘Class of One’ Argument”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.

And today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Court Limits Public-Worker Claims; Unique Complaint of Bias Disallowed as Equal-Protection Case.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Personnel Decision: The Supreme Court gives government some needed leeway in employment matters.”

“US court rules in Quanta’s favor in LG patent case”: Reuters provides this report.

And law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “Supreme Court Limits Companies’ Ability to Collect Multiple Royalties on Their Patents.”

“Court upholds ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’; Case originated in Boston with 12 former GIs”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.

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

“Supreme Court curtails rights of public employees; The justices reject an Oregon woman’s discrimination lawsuit, saying it threatened to turn millions of ordinary job grievances into federal cases”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

“Justices to See Philip Morris Case a Third Time”: Linda Greenhouse will have this article Tuesday in The New York Times.

And Tuesday in The Christian Science Monitor, Warren Richey will have an article headlined “$79 million smoker case not over; The U.S Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear — again — a case in which Philip Morris is disputing the size of a damage award.”

“US court again dismisses challenge to military ban on gays”: Agence France-Presse provides this report on today’s First Circuit ruling, which I first reported on in the post immediately below.

The AFP article seems to suggest that today’s First Circuit ruling overrules last month’s Ninth Circuit ruling to the contrary. Of course, if the First Circuit could overrule the Ninth Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court might have a bit more free time on its hands.

First Circuit panel rejects constitutional challenge to the U.S. military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy: You can access today’s ruling at this link. The majority opinion observes, “we are persuaded that Lawrence did indeed recognize a protected liberty interest for adults to engage in private, consensual sexual intimacy and applied a balancing of constitutional interests that defies either the strict scrutiny or rational basis label.”

Today’s ruling disagrees with a ruling that a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel issued last month. My earlier coverage of that Ninth Circuit ruling appears here and here.

“Is Los Angeles International Airport a public forum under the Liberty of Speech Clause of the California Constitution?” A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today issued an order certifying that question for resolution by the Supreme Court of California. The certification order issued in a case captioned International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. City of Los Angeles. A related scene from the movie “Airplane!” can be accessed at this link via YouTube.

“Supreme Court to Weigh School Sex-Discrimination Case”: Mark Walsh has this post at “The School Law Blog” of Education Week.

“Court reopens punitive damages case”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court Order List and opinions in argued cases: The Court today has issued opinions in the following four argued cases:

1. Allison Engine Co. v. United States Ex Rel. Sanders, No. 07-214. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. You can access the opinion at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

2. Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 06-937. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. You can access the opinion at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

3. Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., No. 07-210. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. You can access the opinion at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

4. Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, No. 07-474. The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Thomas, Stephen G. Breyer, and Alito joined. Justice John Paul Stevens issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined. You can access the opinion at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

The Court plans to issue additional opinions on Thursday of this week.

The Court today also granted review in two cases and called for the views of the Solicitor General in another case. You can access today’s Order List at this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Justices rule against worker who lost job“; “Justices allow RICO lawsuit in Illinois case“; “Court sets limits in government fraud suits“: “High court rules against multiple royalties“; and “Court will again review $79.5M award in tobacco case.”

“Justice is served: A Harvard Law grad develops an odd obsession.” Chris Colin has this interesting article today in The San Francisco Chronicle. The “odd obsession” is making plates — which you can dine off of — that commemorate important cases and U.S. Supreme Court Justices. You can view the plates via the web site “Learned Handmade Plates.”

“Law Schools Visited by Supreme Court Justices, 2007”: This post appears today at “TaxProf Blog.”

“Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner speaks on immigration and the increasing number of immigration cases”: You can view Saturday’s broadcast of C-SPAN’s “America and the Courts” by clicking here (RealPlayer required).

“Putting the tribunals on trial: A test for the American military commissions that are supposed to try suspected terrorists.” This article appears online at the web site of The Economist magazine.

“It’s counties against state again in appeal of pot suit”: Today’s edition of The San Diego Union-Tribune contains an article that begins, “Nineteen months after a judge rejected San Diego County’s lawsuit against the state of California seeking to overturn medical marijuana laws, government lawyers are returning to court to argue their appeals. In a case being watched closely by counties around the state, oral arguments are scheduled for 9 a.m. Tuesday in a 4th District Court of Appeal courtroom in downtown San Diego.”

“W.Va. justices question need for additional court”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Most of West Virginia’s Supreme Court justices question the need for a midlevel appeals court, a proposal raised after they refused to hear two cases involving a combined $664 million in damages.”

“Va. high court revisits spam case; Convicted spammer is challenging law as being unconstitutionally broad”: Thursday’s edition of The Richmond Times-Dispatch contained this article.

“Top state court marks 200th anniversary”: This article appeared last week in The Connecticut Post.

The Associated Press is reporting: Now available online are articles headlined “Mo. governor candidate’s legal work draws scrutiny” and “Judge seeks end to 12-year suit over Indian money.”

“Supreme Court could hear challenge to Voting Rights Act; Law that requires permission to change elections under fire”: The Shreveport Times today contains an article that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court could decide whether Louisiana must keep asking the Justice Department for permission to change how it conducts elections.”

“Trial of Judge Allen likely to be intense; Ethics and perjury case going to trial Monday is ‘unprecedented'”: Today in The Pensacola News Journal, Paul Flemming has an article that begins, “Illicit sex. Profane outbursts. Lies. And that’s just the judges. On Monday, Michael Allen, a 1st District Court of Appeal judge, goes on trial before a panel of the Judicial Qualification Commission. If the charges against him are found to have merit, he ultimately could be removed from the bench. His case — that flamed into public when he called out a fellow judge in the usually staid pages of a court opinion — has roiled the state’s largest, most influential appeal court in Tallahassee for more than four years.”

The newspaper also contains articles headlined “Roots of the case against Judge Michael Allen” and “W.D. Childers’ role in the Judge Allen case.”

“Supreme Court’s caseload slows; Analysis of state Supreme Court action finds a decline over eight years”: The Tulsa World today contains an article that begins, “The number of appeals and court actions at the Oklahoma Supreme Court have declined significantly in eight years because of the chilling effect of legislative reforms and due to mediated lawsuits, court officials said.”

“Roanoke Valley judge up for Va. Supreme Court; Clifford Weckstein has been endorsed by one bar association, but a political snare may complicate the appointment process”: This article appears today in The Roanoke Times.

“The Supreme Court’s Term So Far: An Unusual Degree of Agreement, With Liberals Joining ‘Conservative’ Rulings and Vice-Versa.” Edward Lazarus has this essay online at FindLaw.

“The Guantanamo Court: The trials of Sept. 11 suspects are a discredit to U.S. justice.” This editorial appears today in The Washington Post.

And today in The Los Angeles Times, columnist Tim Rutten has an op-ed entitled “Martyrs in the making at Guantanamo: Just as Al Qaeda is falling apart, Bush’s terrorist tribunals are reviving it.”

“Conviction Upheld in Terror Plot; Judges Send Falls Church Man’s Case Back for Resentencing”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “A federal appeals court yesterday upheld the conviction of a Falls Church man for plotting to kill President Bush and sent the case back to a lower court for resentencing — a victory for prosecutors, who had argued that Ahmed Omar Abu Ali’s 30-year prison term was too lenient.”

And The Washington Times reports today that “Al Qaeda plot conviction upheld; Ruling calls for resentencing.”

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

“Justices List Their Assets; Wide Range of Wealth”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

And Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Justices are well-off, well-traveled.”

“‘I Am Guilty’: In his own words, Lerach lashes out at federal prosecutors and defends the practice of client kickbacks that put him away.” Bill Lerach will have this essay in the July 2008 issue of Conde Nast Portfolio magazine.

And today in The New York Times, business columnist Joe Nocera has a related essay entitled “Serving Time, but Lacking Remorse.”

Parts is parts: Yesterday, The Cleveland Plain Dealer contained an article headlined “Court rules coroners allowed to retain autopsied body parts.”

Yesterday’s issue of The Cincinnati Enquirer contained an article headlined “Court: Coroners not required to return parts.”

And The Columbus Dispatch reported yesterday that “Coroners free to keep organs; Top Ohio court halts autopsy suit in 6-1 decision.”

You can access Thursday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Ohio at this link. In addition, the court issued a news release headlined “Ohio Law Does Not Establish a ‘Protected Right’ in Autopsy Specimens.” And you can view the classic Wendy’s “Parts is Parts” commercial by clicking here (via YouTube).

“Justice Dept. Urged to Examine Authorization of Harsh Interrogation Tactics”: The Washington Post provides a news update that begins, “Nearly 60 House Democrats yesterday urged the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to examine whether top Bush administration officials may have committed crimes in authorizing the use of harsh interrogation tactics against suspected terrorists.”

The newspaper has posted the letter online at this link.

“3rd Circuit Judges Pepper Counsel With Questions in ‘Voice of God’ Case”: Shannon P. Duffy of The Legal Intelligencer provides this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “‘Voice of God’ heir battles NFL Films over Madden program.”