“Supreme Court slashes penalty against Exxon for Valdez spill near Alaska; The justices reduce the punitive damages against Exxon to $507 million from $2.5 billion; The oil company has already spent $2.1 billion in cleanup costs after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

“Supreme Court: Thursday’s the Final Day.” Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Supreme Court rejects death penalty for child rape”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers has this report.

“Fired U.S. attorneys case hits judicial roadblock; A cautious judge may be good news for Bush officials in ongoing subpoena struggle”: This article appears today in The Christian Science Monitor.

“Blind trusts will improve blind justice in the high court; They could help avoid judicial conflicts of interest”: David A. Ridenour has this op-ed today in The Christian Science Monitor.

“Supreme Court strikes down La. rape penalty”: The Times-Picayune of New Orleans provides this news update.

“Court slashes Exxon Valdez damages to $507.5 million”: The Anchorage Daily News provides this update.

“A conversation with Justice Antonin Scalia”: If you missed last Friday’s broadcast of “The Charlie Rose Show,” you can view the video online via this link.

“NY’s top court affirms dropping 4 claims against Grasso”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “New York’s top court has affirmed dropping four claims against former chairman New York Stock Exchange Chairman Richard Grasso, dealing a major setback to the legacy of former state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.”

You can access today’s ruling of the New York State Court of Appeals at this link.

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court rulings in argued cases: You can access the live blogging of today’s rulings from “SCOTUSblog” at this link. The Court will not be issuing its much anticipated Second Amendment ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, today. Rather, that decision will be issued at or soon after 10 a.m. eastern time tomorrow (Thursday).

1. The Court’s first ruling issued in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, No. 07-219. Justice David H. Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. You can access the opinion at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

By custom, the Court’s Justices announce opinions in argued cases in reverse order of the Justices’ seniority. Thus, Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Clarence Thomas will not be issuing any majority opinions today.

2. Today’s second ruling issued in Kennedy v. Louisiana, No. 07-343. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy issued the decision, siding with his namesake, the petitioner. The case was decided by a 5-4 margin. You can access the opinion at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

3. Today’s third ruling issued in Giles v. California, No. 07-6053. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. You can access the opinion at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

4. Today’s fourth and final ruling issued in Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., No. 07-411. The Court decided the case by a 5-4 margin. The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the Court. You can access the opinion at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

In early news coverage, Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Court rejects death penalty for raping children” and “Court cuts judgment in Exxon Valdez disaster.” The AP also reports that “Court bars use of victim’s prior statements at murder trial” and “Justices restrict Indian courts’ jurisdiction.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Death penalty barred for child rape.”

The three argued cases in which decisions remain to be issued are: (1) Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Utility Distr. No. 1 of Snohomish Cty., No. 06-1457 (access the questions presented here and here; access the oral argument transcript here); (2) District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290 (access the question presented here and the oral argument transcript here); and (3) Davis v. Federal Election Comm’n, No. 07-320 (access the questions presented here and the oral argument transcript here).

Decisions in these three cases will issue tomorrow at 10 a.m. eastern time.

Unusual first name alert: Footnote one of yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Scott, No. 07-6111, states in full:

Law enforcement officials involved in the case were never able to identify this individual by her legal name. Although she is referred to as both “Orgasm” and “Obsession” in the record, we will refer to her as “Obsession” for consistency.

The opinion identifies the person in question as a prostitute. Given that the opinion mentions Obsession some twenty times, one presumes that had the Tenth Circuit chosen differently, the decision would have mentioned the word “Orgasm” more than any other reported federal appellate court ruling. A search of Westlaw’s CTA database for the word “orgasm” returns only 50 federal appellate court rulings before yesterday’s Tenth Circuit decision.

“Supreme Court meets Wednesday morning”: The Associated Press provides this report.

At 10 a.m. eastern time today, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin announcing decisions in some or all of the seven undecided cases argued earlier this Term. Stay tuned for complete coverage throughout the day.

“Court tosses killer’s death sentence”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “A federal appeals court overturned a Los Angeles man’s death sentence Tuesday for the fatal stabbing of his supervisor during a 1984 robbery, saying the defense lawyer ignored blood evidence that might have shown that someone else was the killer.”

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

“Probe finds illegal hiring at Justice Department; Promising lawyers and law students were rejected because of their political and ideological views, internal investigators say”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

The Washington Post reports today that “Ideology-Based Hiring at Justice Broke Laws, Investigation Finds.”

The New York Times reports that “Report Assails Political Hiring in Justice Dept.”

And The Washington Times reports that “Lawyers tied to liberals rejected in hiring; Report finds political bias.”

“Nichols says DA in on cover-up”: Today’s edition of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution contains an article that begins, “Brian Nichols is accusing Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard of covering up misconduct by a prosecutor and is asking the trial judge to throw out the death penalty and certain evidence. Nichols has entered a mental health defense to four killings in the Fulton County Courthouse shooting case, which happened when Nichols escaped from custody during his rape trial March 11, 2005.”

“Another Rebuke on Guantanamo”: This editorial appears today in The New York Times.

And at National Review Online, Andrew C. McCarthy has an essay entitled “Welcome to Boumediene World: A federal court overrules the commander-in-chief on enemy combatants.”

“Facebook in legal fight for its future; CEO’s classmates who say he stole their ideas want settlement revisited”: Yesterday’s edition of The San Jose Mercury News contained an article that begins, “A long-running legal battle over whether Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg ripped off Harvard classmates in launching his social-networking Web site shifted to a San Jose federal courtroom Monday as high-powered legal teams squared off in a fight that could have huge consequences for the company’s future.”

“Four out of Nine Ain’t Bad: Here’s how the Supreme Court’s left-leaning justices can fight back against the conservative majority.” Nicholas Stephanopoulos has this essay online today at The New Republic.

“Detainee fight gets bigger, costlier for long-battling Boston law firm; Six Algerian terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay for more than six years without charges have won the right to petition for release, increasing the stakes for their pro bono defenders”: The Boston Globe today contains an article that begins, “The Wilmer Hale law firm, one of the largest and most respected in Boston, has a reputation for championing unpopular causes: President Nixon during impeachment. The US Army during the McCarthy hearings. Even defending serial killer Ted Bundy. But the firm’s past efforts pale in comparison with the free legal assistance that it has given to six Algerian terrorist suspects held without charge at Guantanamo Bay. Since 2004, lawyers with the firm have provided 35,448 billable hours of legal help, worth an estimated $17 million, making this case the largest pro bono effort in the 90-year history of the firm.”

“Kozinski’s Spirit”: This editorial appears today in The New York Sun.

“Banning Loaded Words at Criminal Trials: A Well-Meaning But Foolish Approach to Protecting Defendants.” Sherry F. Colb has this essay online at FindLaw.

“Michigan judge named to U.S. appeals court”: The Detroit News today contains an article that begins, “Ending a bitter partisan feud that dates from 1997, the U.S. Senate took less than two hours Tuesday night to confirm a controversial Michigan judge to sit on the federal appeals court that handles cases for the Midwest. The final vote to give Helene White, a Michigan state appeals court judge, the lifetime appointment to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was 63-32.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Senate approves Michigan judicial nominees.”

In addition to confirming the nomination of Helene White (click here and scroll down for bio) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on a roll call vote, the U.S. Senate yesterday also confirmed Raymond Kethledge to the Sixth Circuit on a voice vote.

“IG report: Justice Dept. wrongly considered politics in hiring.” Marisa Taylor of McClatchy Newspapers has this report.

The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Left-leaning Justice Department applicants were denied interviews, report finds; Two officials illegally allowed political considerations to come into play when screening applicants for the department’s honors program and summer internships, the Justice investigation finds.”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “Audit: Justice Dept. Kept Out Liberal Attorneys” (RealPlayer required).

“Report Sees Illegal Hiring Practices at Justice Department”: The New York Times has a news update that begins, “Justice Department officials over the last six years illegally used ‘political or ideological’ factors to hire new lawyers into an elite recruitment program, tapping law school graduates with conservative credentials over those with liberal-sounding resumes, a new report found Tuesday.”

You can access today’s report of the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice at this link.

D.C. Circuit reverses dismissal of lawsuit filed by plaintiffs who sued Iraq, the Iraqi Intelligence Service, and Saddam Hussein, alleging that those defendants had tortured plaintiffs and taken them hostage during the 1990-91 Gulf War: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.

“Taste-Testing Nutraloaf: The prison food that just might be unconstitutionally bad.” Arin Greenwood has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Death Row Inmate’s Case Gets 3rd Hearing”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

“Judge Urged to Order Associates Of President to Honor Subpoena; House Panel Seeks Information About Prosecutors’ Firings”: The Washington Post contains this article today.

And today in The New York Times, Neil A. Lewis has an article headlined “Before Judge, Spirited Clash on Subpoenas for Bush Aides.”

“Appeals Court Invalidates Detainee’s ‘Enemy’ Status; Challenge Is First of Its Kind to Succeed”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

And The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Court rules for Guantanamo inmate; Huzaifa Parhat, a Uighur Muslim, must be released, transferred or given a new hearing, a federal appeals court rules; It’s another setback for the Bush administration.”

“Gitmo troopers get tattoos as off-duty diversion; Tattoos are all the rage at Guantanamo Bay as U.S. service members and contractors line up to get inked up”: Carol Rosenberg had this article Saturday in The Miami Herald.

“In defense of home schooling: Supporters argue that parents shouldn’t need teaching credentials; Lawyers suggest a more narrow ruling.” The Los Angeles Times today contains an article that begins, “Advocates urged a state appellate court Monday to overturn a decision that severely restricted the ability of California parents to educate their children at home, saying family-based schooling works for hundreds of thousands of children.”

“High Court to Take Up Pregnancy Leave Case”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

And today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Court to hear case over mothers’ retirement benefits; AT&T was found guilty of bias against pregnant women.”

“High Court to Review Naval Sonar Dispute; Environmental Petition on Border Fence Declined”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post.

Today in The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has articles headlined “Supreme Court to hear case involving Navy sonar and whales; The justices will examine a judge’s ruling that limited military training when marine mammals are near” and “Border fence challenge rebuffed by Supreme Court; The justices decline to hear a petition from environmentalists, allowing the Department of Homeland Security to continue construction.”

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Justices to debate whether Navy sonar harms whales; Appeals court had eased restrictions on timing, location of military exercises.”

In The Christian Science Monitor, Warren Richey reports that “Case of sonar’s effects on whales heads to high court; At issue: Can a judge enforce environmental rules at the expense of national defense training?”

In The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Supreme Court to consider sonar versus whales.”

The Dallas Morning News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear border fence challenge.”

The Arizona Republic reports that “Final miles of border fence get green light; Supreme Court ignores environmental concerns.”

The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that “Border fence case is rejected; Supreme Court allows construction to proceed.”

And The San Antonio Express-News reports that “Environmentalists see bumps ahead for border fence efforts.”

“Report Says Partisanship Reigned in Justice Department Hiring Program”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “High-ranking political appointees at the Justice Department labored to stock a prestigious hiring program with young conservatives in a five-year-long attempt to reshape the department’s ranks, according to an inspector general’s report to be released today.”

“Judge won’t quit terror case; Defendant facing sentencing cites jurist’s Jewish heritage”: Today’s edition of The Detroit News contains an article that begins, “A Lebanese-born man who pleaded guilty to providing support to the terrorist organization Hezbollah asked a federal judge on Monday to disqualify himself from passing sentence on him because the judge is Jewish and might have pro-Israel sympathies.”