“Court’s Gay Marriage Ruling Will Test Paterson’s Policy”: Today in The New York Sun, Joseph Goldstein has an article that begins, “The issue of gay marriage in New York is returning to court today, with a panel of appellate judges in Brooklyn scheduled to hear arguments on whether the state must recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.”

“Court continues trend of protecting business free speech”: Tony Mauro has this news analysis online at the First Amendment Center.

“Missouri conservatives are ready for battle over judge selection”: Today in The Kansas City Star, columnist Steve Kraske has this essay.

And The Associated Press reports that “Limbaugh to resign from high court at end of July.”

“Cause Is Lost, But Symbol Lives”: Today’s issue of The Day of New London, Connecticut contains an article that begins, “Avner Gregory’s new home on Franklin Street sticks out from the houses around it. His house has a stone stake in the front yard that says ‘Not for sale.’ Also, it’s an eye-grabbing shade of pink. But 36 Franklin St., which was originally Susette Kelo’s home in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood and became the focal point of a Supreme Court case that sought – and failed – to save her neighborhood, is just as much a symbol as it is a house.”

And The Associated Press reports that “House in CT eminent domain dispute finds new home.”

“Washington’s right-to-die battle is personal; A petition drive is wrapping up for a measure expected to be on the November ballot”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“How to Complicate Habeas Corpus”: Today in The New York Times, Law Professor Richard A. Epstein has an op-ed that begins, “Last week’s Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush settled a key constitutional issue: all prisoners detained at Guantanamo Bay are constitutionally entitled to bring habeas corpus in federal court to challenge the legality of their detention.”

And today in The Wall Street Journal, Andrew McBride has an op-ed entitled “We’ll Rue Having Judges on the Battlefield.”

“The Court and Workers”: The New York Times today contains an editorial that begins, “The Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts quickly carved out a reputation for being reflexively pro-business. On Thursday, however, it issued a good ruling in favor of workers suing for age discrimination, the latest of several pro-worker decisions. The ruling is an encouraging sign that the court may be evolving in its approach to cases brought by workers who have been treated unfairly.”

“Inside a 9/11 Mastermind’s Interrogation”: This article will appear Sunday in The New York Times.

Available online at Slate: Emily Bazelon has a jurisprudence essay entitled “Swing Your Partner: O’Connor vs. Kennedy as the justice in the middle.”

And coinciding with this upcoming week’s announcement of the U.S. Supreme Court‘s remaining decisions in cases argued this Term, Slate’s “The Supreme Court Breakfast Table” feature gets underway today with a post from Dahlia Lithwick titled “Is the court beginning its togetherness phase?”

“Juveniles entitled to jury trials, Kansas court says”: The Kansas City Star today contains an article that begins, “In a decision affecting every juvenile criminal case in Kansas, the state Supreme Court has guaranteed juvenile defendants the right to a trial before a jury. The court ruled Friday that young defendants should be afforded the protections of a jury because the distinctions between juvenile and adult justice have eroded over the past 20 years as lawmakers cracked down on juvenile crime. The decision sent a shock wave through the juvenile justice community. Prosecutors and judges said the likely result is more juries, longer trials and higher expenses.”

And The Topeka Capital-Journal reports today that “Jury trials for youths may strain local court; Justices rule juveniles entitled to same right as adult defendants.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Kansas at this link.

“Strip bar stripped of lease; High court ends 10-year fight over site owned by Intermountain Healthcare”: The Deseret News contains this article today.

And The Salt Lake Tribune reports today that “Top court rules landlord can boot strip club; Intermountain plans to use Murray site to expand its center.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Utah at this link.

“Blindness doesn’t deter law clerk from high court”: At CNN.com, Bill Mears has a report that begins, “Isaac Lidsky arrives in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, stops suddenly and, upon hearing a voice, extends his hand in greeting almost instinctively.”

This blog’s earlier coverage appears at this link.

“The High Court: A User’s Guide: The next president could appoint up to three justices–the constitutional equivalent of a straight flush.” Dahlia Lithwick will have this essay in the June 30, 2008 issue of Newsweek.

“The Controversy Over Judge Alex Kozinski and His Website: Why the Facts, as We Now Know Them, Do Not Provide Reason for This Talented Jurist to Step Down.” Edward Lazarus has this essay online at FindLaw.

“Gay rights groups ask California Supreme Court to block initiative banning same-sex marriage; The supporters argue that an initiative on the November ballot would revise the state Constitution rather than just amend it and that requires the involvement of the Legislature”: Maura Dolan has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Gay marriage backers want ban issue off ballot.”

And in The San Jose Mercury News, Howard Mintz reports that “Groups seek to block gay-marriage initiative.”

“White House Dismissed Legal Advice On Detainees”: The Washington Post today contains a front page article that begins, “Senior lawyers inside and outside the Bush administration repeatedly warned the White House that it was risking judicial scrutiny of its detention policies in Guantanamo Bay if it did not pursue a more pragmatic legal strategy that considered the likely reaction of the Supreme Court. But such advice, issued periodically over the past six years, was ignored or discounted, according to current and former administration officials familiar with the debates.”

“BCE buyout gets go-ahead from Canada’s high court”: Reuters provides this report, along with a report headlined “Wall St relieved but concerns over BCE deal remain.”

The Associated Press reports that “Canadian court allows largest ever leveraged buyout.”

Bloomberg News reports that “BCE’s Buyout Back on Track After Supreme Court Approves Deal.”

Today’s edition of The Toronto Star contains articles headlined “Court clears BCE sale; Shares jump as ruling clears track for largest leveraged buyout; shifts focus to turnaround plan” and “BCE saga’s end may still be long way off.”

Today’s edition of The Toronto Globe and Mail contains an article headlined “The deal lives.” In addition, Derek DeCloet has an essay entitled “A victory for sanity, capitalism and common sense.”

The New York Times reports that “Canadian Court Allows Phone Buyout to Proceed.”

And Financial Times reports that “Canada court clears $34bn BCE buy-out.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada at this link.

“Case against federal judge OK’d; U.S. House to weigh Porteous allegations Porteous impeachment”: This article appears today in The Times-Picayune of New Orleans.

And Pamela A. MacLean of The National Law Journal reports that “Federal Judiciary Asks House to Impeach Louisiana Judge.”

“On the record of this case, the police officers violated appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights by unzipping his jacket without his permission and without probable cause or a warrant.” So holds the majority of the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a lengthy ruling issued today.

Back on April 6, 2007, a three-judge panel reached the opposite result by a 2-1 vote. My coverage of that decision appears at this link.

The dissenter on the three-judge panel is the author of today’s en banc majority opinion, while the author of the three-judge panel’s majority opinion is the author of today’s en banc dissent.

“Appeals court refuses to step into terrorism case”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A federal appeals court Friday refused to intervene in the military commission case against a Canadian detainee.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Limit on review of war crimes issues.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.

“Philadelphia judge among Rendell’s Pa. court picks”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell on Friday nominated three veteran judges and a former top aide to Gov. Tom Ridge in a deal with Republican senators to finally fill temporary vacancies on Pennsylvania’s appellate courts. Rendell’s pick to fill an opening on the state Supreme Court is Jane Cutler Greenspan, a 20-year Philadelphia common pleas court judge.”

And The Allentown Morning Call provides a news update headlined “Freedberg nominated for Superior Court seat.”

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell today issued a news release headlined “Governor Rendell Announces Nominations for Pennsylvania Statewide Appellate Courts.”

“Federal Judge Rejects 11th Circuit’s Urging That Investment Company Be Punished; Senior U.S. District Court judge again dismisses securities case against Merchant Capital LLC”: law.com provides a report that begins, “Judge Marvin Shoob has again dismissed a fraud case by Atlanta lawyers for the Securities and Exchange Commission against an investment company, despite a strong suggestion from a federal appeals court that the investment company did wrong and deserved to be punished.”

“Guantanamo prisoner opens new era of court challenges”: Michael Doyle and Marisa Taylor of McClatchy Newspapers have this report.

“Surveillance Bill Offers Protection To Telecom Firms; Deal Would Extend U.S. Wiretap Power, Shield Providers Facing Privacy Lawsuits”: This front page article appears today in The Washington Post.

The New York Times reports today that “Congress Strikes Deal to Overhaul Wiretap Law.”

And The Los Angeles Times reports that “Compromise reached on government wiretaps; The new bill would give spy agencies greater powers and protect phone companies, but it would also require court approvals.”

“Supreme Court voids California union law; The legislation would have blocked employers that received state money from tapping those funds to speak out against labor organizations”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

And today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Court rules bosses can speak against unions.”

“Self-Representation by the Mentally Ill Is Curbed”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.

Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Supreme Court Rules On Self-Representation; Competence to Stand Trial Is Not Enough.”

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Justices rule on mentally ill’s right to self-representation.”

law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “Supreme Court Limits Self-Representation by Mentally Ill Defendants.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “High court: limits to defend oneself in court; Justices rule 7 to 2 that some defendants aren’t competent enough to represent themselves.”

The Indianapolis Star contains an article headlined “Court: mentally ill man needed lawyer.”

And yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Supreme Court Rules in Sanity Case” featuring Nina Totenberg.

“Appeals court rejects copyright claims to Pink Panther story”: The Associated Press provides this report.

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

Programming note: My son and I will be leaving momentarily to travel to Oriole Park at Camden Yards to watch this evening’s baseball game between the Houston Astros and the Baltimore Orioles. You can access previews of the game via this link. Tonight’s give-away at the game is a Nick Markakis dobblehead doll.

“BCE decision due Friday”: The Toronto Globe and Mail provides this news update.

And Reuters reports that “Canada court to issue BCE judgement on Friday.”

Who owns the idea of Inspector Jacques Clouseau in the film “The Pink Panther”? A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today issued this ruling addressing that question.

“An Unlikely Antagonist in the Detainees’ Corner”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

And Reuters provides a report headlined “October trial set for Canadian at Guantanamo.”

“US court rules against MetLife in benefits case”: James Vicini of Reuters provides this report. Reuters also has articles headlined “Court: mentally ill defendant can’t be own lawyer” and “Supreme Court strikes down California law on unions.”

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania declines to review lawfulness of a preliminary injunction precluding the defendant from dissipating assets to become judgment-proof pending a trial on plaintiffs’ claims: Simply looking at the percentages, a lawyer filing a brief in opposition to a request for discretionary review from the U.S. Supreme Court or a state court of last resort has a great likelihood of success, given the infrequency that such review is granted.

Nevertheless, there are some cases in which a request for review, on its face, has a good chance of being granted, and in that subset of cases the brief in opposition can play an important role.

Last October, I was asked to draft a Brief in Opposition to a Petition for Allowance of Appeal for filing in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in a case in which the petitioner was arguing that the intermediate appellate court’s ruling was contrary to rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court and the courts of seven other States. Among the attorneys for petitioner in that case was someone who until recently had served for many years as a Justice of the Pa. Supreme Court.

As you might imagine, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal, on its face, raised many seemingly persuasive reasons for Pa. Supreme Court review. Fortunately for our side of the case, I thought that the Brief in Opposition that I wrote on behalf of the plaintiffs provided a number of sound reasons for the Pa. Supreme Court to deny review. I was thus pleased to learn that on Tuesday of this week, Pennsylvania’s highest court issued an order denying review.

The Judicial Conference of the United States unanimously asks the U.S. House of Representatives to consider impeaching U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. (E.D. La.): The Times-Picayune of New Orleans provides a news update headlined “U.S. House to consider impeachment trial for Porteous.” The newspaper has posted online yesterday’s communication from the Judicial Conference to the Speaker of the House.

And FOXNews.com reports that “House Panel to Consider Rare Federal Judge Impeachment.”

The Judicial Council of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had certified this matter to the Judicial Conference of the United States by means of an order issued December 20, 2007.

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court opinions in argued cases: The Court today has issued five decisions in argued cases, leaving ten cases yet to be decided.

1. Today’s first opinion issued in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, No. 06-923. Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. You can access the decision at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

2. Today’s second opinion issued in Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC, No. 06-1037. Justice Breyer also delivered the opinion of the Court in this case.This is a 5-4 ruling, with Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. in dissent. You can access the decision at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

3. Today’s third opinion issued in Indiana v. Edwards, No. 07-208. Completing the trifecta, Justice Breyer also delivered the opinion of the Court in this case. You can access the decision at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

4. Today’s fourth opinion issued in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, No. 06-1505. Justice David H. Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. You can access the decision at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

5. Today’s fifth and final opinion issued in Chamber of Commerce of United States v. Brown, No. 06-939. Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. You can access the decision at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court puts limits on mentally ill defendants“; “Court sides with employee in benefits case“; “Court rules for workers in age bias suit“; “Court rejects California union law“; and “Court finds no age bias in Ky. retirement system.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court rules on self-representation; 4 other rulings.”