“Fifteen public school teachers seek to enjoin their respective school districts from releasing their names in response to a public records request by the Seattle Times Company for the names of teachers alleged to have committed sexual misconduct against students.” So begins the majority opinion that the Supreme Court of Washington State issued today.

And the majority opinion concludes:

We reverse the Court of Appeals in part. We hold a teacher’s identity should be released under the [Public Disclosure Act] only when alleged sexual misconduct has been substantiated or when that teacher’s conduct results in some form of discipline, even if only a reprimand. Letters of direction and related documents must be disclosed under the PDA, but where a letter simply seeks to guide future conduct, does not identify an incident of substantiated misconduct, and does not subject the teacher to any form of restriction or discipline, a teacher’s name and other identifying information must be redacted.

Five of the court’s nine justices joined in the majority opinion, while a sixth concurred only in the result without separate opinion. Two other justices joined in a dissenting opinion and would have held that “reports of allegations of sexual misconduct against children by their teachers, including the teachers’ identities, must be disclosed whether the sexual misconduct is substantiated or not.” The remaining justice did not participate in the ruling.

“Some complain Law Review biased against gay marriage”: The Forum of Fargo, North Dakota today contains an article that begins, “Some North Dakota attorneys are outraged over the latest North Dakota Law Review, saying the scholarly publication was hijacked by national religious rights activists bent on stopping gay marriage.” You can view a list of the articles in question, and the names of the authors of those articles, by clicking here.

“US judge: White House aides can be subpoenaed.” The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “President Bush’s top advisers are not immune from congressional subpoenas, a federal judge ruled Thursday in an unprecedented dispute between the two political branches. The House Judiciary Committee wants to question the president’s chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and former legal counsel Harriet Miers, about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys. But President Bush says they are immune from such subpoenas. They say Congress can’t force them to testify or turn over documents.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia at this link.

One more reason to turn off your word processor’s “auto-correct” feature: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit today issued its ruling in United States v. Teh.

The Teh appeal involves a defendant’s challenge to his conviction for having fraudulently imported counterfeit copies of motion picture DVDs.

“Second look at bid for new Nacchio trial; Full appeals court to decide whether conviction stands”: The Rocky Mountain News today contains an article that begins, “The Department of Justice scored a victory Wednesday in its ongoing case against Joe Nacchio, as the full 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to consider whether the former Qwest CEO’s conviction should stand. Prosecutors asked the full panel to hear the case after a three- judge panel ruled earlier this year that the conviction should be thrown out and a new trial held. The court, which grants only a handful of such requests each year, set oral arguments for Sept. 24.”

And today’s edition of The Denver Post contains articles headlined “A full review for Nacchio verdict; A win for Feds” and “Retirees cheer Nacchio decision.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s order granting rehearing en banc can be accessed here.

“Alabama Supreme Court delays execution of Thomas Arthur; state can’t find rape kit evidence”: This article appears today in The Birmingham News.

And The New York Times reports today that “Court Votes to Postpone an Execution in Alabama.”

“Witness: Hamdan not part of ‘elite’; A defense expert testified that Osama bin Laden’s driver had none of the skills to qualify to be an al Qaeda terrorist.” Carol Rosenberg has this article today in The Miami Herald.

Today in The Los Angeles Times, Carol J. Williams reports that “At Guantanamo, Hamdan defense tries to block agent’s testimony; The team wants allegations that the Yemeni confessed to a Bin Laden loyalty oath excluded, saying he had been coerced.”

The New York Times reports that “Lawyers for Detainee Assert Coercion.”

And The Washington Post reports that “9/11 Architect Is Unlikely to Aid Defense Of Ex-Driver.”

“Federal judge says cross can remain on San Diego’s Mt. Soledad; ACLU says opponents may appeal the decision; The symbol is part of a federally owned war memorial”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

My earlier coverage of Monday’s ruling appears at this link.

“Private jury pick sought for Nichols”: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution today contains an article that begins, “Brian Nichols’ defense team wants to conceal from public view one of the most crucial steps in his trial because he contends it is prejudicing potential jurors against him. In court papers filed Wednesday, Nichols and his lawyers asked Superior Court Judge James Bodiford to bar reporters from the courtroom until a jury is selected for the death penalty trial. The request troubled some experts because, in effect, it meant a shroud of secrecy would cover the process of deciding who would be an acceptable juror — the process that often decides the fate of a case.”

“Vote on Journalist Shield Stalled; Senate GOP Won’t Debate Until Oil and Gas Bill Is Considered”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“Workers’ Religious Freedom vs. Patients’ Rights; Proposal Would Deny Federal Money if Employees Must Provide Care to Which They Object”: The Washington Post today contains a front page article that begins, “A Bush administration proposal aimed at protecting health-care workers who object to abortion, and to birth-control methods they consider tantamount to abortion, has escalated a bitter debate over the balance between religious freedom and patients’ rights.”

“Showdown over a Texas execution: The state plans to execute a Mexican national on Aug. 5, despite objections of the World Court.” Warren Richey has this article today in The Christian Science Monitor.

And today’s edition of The Washington Post contains an editorial entitled “Buying Time in Texas: Tuesday’s execution of a Mexican national should be delayed while Congress resolves a treaty dispute.”

“SJC’s longest-serving member to retire; Greaney had key role in landmark decisions”: The Boston Globe today contains an article that begins, “Justice John M. Greaney, the longest-serving member of the state Supreme Judicial Court and a pivotal vote in some of its most significant decisions, announced yesterday that he will retire by year’s end, creating the potential for a new dynamic on the state’s highest court.”

And The Boston Herald reports today that “Justice retires, gov can fill seat.”

“The Supreme Court Is Wrong On the Death Penalty”: Today in The Wall Street Journal, Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe has an op-ed that begins, “It’s not often that the U.S. Supreme Court is asked by a state and the federal government to reconsider a case it has just handed down because it missed key evidence. But that is what is happening now in Kennedy v. Louisiana.”

The op-ed concludes, “The Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause should not be construed in a manner that puts it on a collision course with the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. The Supreme Court would do well to take that overriding consideration into account as it decides whether to revisit its seriously misinformed as well as morally misguided ruling.”

“A Nervous Moment for Kozinski and the 9th Circuit Conference”: Pamela A. MacLean of The National Law Journal has an article that begins, “The cocktail party at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judicial Conference had a nervous moment Monday when a Beverly Hills, Calif., attorney and critic of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski was escorted from the outdoors reception after getting too close to the chief judge. Cyrus Sanai, who gained press credentials on assignment from the LA Weekly, said he was waiting to talk with Judge Richard Clifton, the conference chair, when Kozinski passed within a few feet. That was enough to trigger U.S. marshals to ask Sanai to leave. It was Sanai who leaked word to the media in June that Kozinski had a Web site that contained sexually explicit materials; that news touched off a discipline inquiry of Kozinski, currently pending in the 3d Circuit. Sanai said he also plans to file his own, broader misconduct complaint next month against Kozinski, stemming from the materials on the Web site. The cocktail party was at the opening night reception held outdoors on the grounds of the Sun Valley, Idaho, resort and was described as ‘open to all’ by Clifton at the end of the first day’s program. Sanai has been closely monitored by security at the conference.”

Federal question jurisdiction does not exist to enable removal from state court to federal court of a lawsuit alleging attorney malpractice during an earlier a federal trademark lawsuit: A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued this ruling today.

Today’s Fifth Circuit decision notes that it is arguably in tension with a recent Federal Circuit ruling which held that federal question jurisdiction does exist over a malpractice suit stemming from representation in an earlier federal patent suit. My earlier coverage of that ruling appears at this link.

“Court: Christian fraternity must be recognized.” The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A federal appeals court has ordered University of Florida officials to recognize a Christian fraternity. Judges from the 11th U.S. Circuit in Atlanta issued an injunction Wednesday ordering the action while a discrimination lawsuit filed by Beta Upsilon Chi against the school moves forward.”

“Full appellate court to review Nacchio case”: The Denver Post provides this news update.

The Rocky Mountain News has an update headlined “Full court will review Nacchio conviction.”

And Reuters reports that “Court to review overturning of Nacchio conviction.”

Nine judges took part in issuing today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granting the federal government’s petition for rehearing en banc, which means that at least five judges voted to rehear the case.

You can access at this link the original three-judge panel’s ruling, which ordered a new trial by a 2-1 vote. The federal government’s petition for rehearing en banc can be accessed here. And defense counsel’s response in opposition to the petition for rehearing en banc can be accessed here.

Today’s order schedules the reargument to occur on September 24, 2008 in Denver. The order directs the parties to file briefs within thirty days from today addressing four specified issues. Here’s hoping that the lawyers in the case were already planning to spend the entire month of August at their desks instead of on vacation.

“An undoubtedly inequitable hardship results from allowing the plaintiffs to prosecute actions in federal court and, after they lose on motions for summary judgment, granting their motions to vacate the judgments because of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Nevertheless, the Fourth Circuit reluctantly affirms the vacation of the judgment against the plaintiffs — alter egos of the State of South Carolina that were content to sue in federal court until they lost on the merits. You can access today’s Fourth Circuit ruling at this link.

The jurisdictional defect was not subject to waiver because subject matter jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship, and States are not considered “citizens” for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction statute.

“Lawyering and the Craft of Judicial Opinion Writing: The Second Conversation with Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. on the Law of the Constitution.” This evening in Malibu, California, starting at 8:30 p.m. eastern time, the Pepperdine University School of Law is hosting this event (you can also access a PDF file of the program’s brochure by clicking here).

Participating will be Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.; Tenth Circuit Judge Michael W. McConnell; Walter E. Dellinger III; and Kenneth W. Starr. Law Professor Douglas W. Kmiec will serve as the program’s host and moderator.

Based on this description of the program, it looks to be quite interesting. It is possible that the Pepperdine School of Law will offer a live webcast via this link. And C-SPAN will be taping the program for broadcast on a later date.

“Latest decision: Cross can stay; Landmark more memorial than religious symbol.” Today’s edition of The San Diego Union-Tribune contains an article that begins, “The giant cross atop Mount Soledad can stay, a federal judge ruled yesterday. The La Jolla landmark has been the subject of nearly 20 years of litigation, public votes and legislative maneuvers as critics complain it’s unconstitutional to have a religious symbol on public land. But yesterday, U.S. District Judge Larry Burns said the cross — visible for miles — has become a memorial to veterans, and its secular message outweighs any religious meaning.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California at this link.

“One Year Later: No Comment from Chief Justice Roberts on his Health.” At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post that begins, “One year after he suffered a seizure near his summer home in Maine, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. is not commenting on the current state of his health. In response to a series of written questions from Legal Times about possible medications or changes in lifestyle, or whether he has suffered any more seizures or other health problems, Roberts offered only a ‘no comment.'”

This blog’s coverage of the events that occurred one year ago can be found in posts that appeared on July 30, 2007 and July 31, 2007.

“Media shield measure stalls in the Senate”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A bill to protect journalists from having to reveal their sources in some federal courts has stalled in the Senate.”

“Politics in U.S. hiring: When is it improper? At the Justice Department, clear lines were crossed, report says.” This article appears today in The Christian Science Monitor.

“Witness fails to ID bin Laden’s driver; The Pentagon came close to wrapping up its prosecution of Osama bin Laden’s driver, calling a former ABC journalist, who testified he didn’t recognize the driver from a 1998 interview”: Carol Rosenberg has this article today in The Miami Herald.

The Washington Post today contains an article headlined “Capturing Bin Laden On Camera; At Guantanamo Trial, Former ABC Reporter Recounts 1998 Interview.”

Carol J. Williams of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Guantanamo prosecution doesn’t rest in Hamdan case; Though finished with their presentation, government lawyers await the military judge’s decision on whether they can call a key witness to the stand.”

And in The Wall Street Journal, Debra Burlingame has an op-ed entitled “From Gitmo to Miranda, With Love.”

“Prop. 8 backers sue to change ballot wording”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “Attorney General Jerry Brown is trying to stack the deck against a November ballot measure barring same-sex marriage by declaring in his formal ballot description that it ‘eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry,’ sponsors of the initiative charged in a lawsuit Tuesday.”

And The San Diego Union-Tribune reports today that “Ban supporters’ lawsuit targets ballot phrasing; Brown’s wording called ‘misleading and prejudicial.’”

“Union of Whole Foods and Wild Oats Is Put in Doubt”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Court overturns ruling that allowed Whole Foods-Wild Oats merger; The Federal Trade Commission opposed the deal, but prospects for reversing it are unclear.”

And The Austin American-Statesman reports that “Whole Foods dealt setback in Wild Oats case.”

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

“D.C. case cited in sentencing challenge; Judge urges Supreme Court to rethink issue”: The Washington Times today contains an article that begins, “A senior federal appeals court judge is citing the case of a D.C. man awaiting sentencing on a drug charge in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit whether judges should give defendants tougher sentences based on conduct that jurors rejected as a basis for conviction. ‘I wonder what the man on the street might say about this practice of allowing a prosecutor and judge to say that a jury verdict of “not guilty” for practical purposes may not mean a thing,’ Judge Myron H. Bright, senior judge for the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in St. Louis, wrote in a recent opinion in an unrelated methamphetamine case.”

“House Bill Would End D.C. Registration Rules”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “D.C. officials are trying to beat back an effort by some lawmakers to send a bill to the House floor that would dramatically weaken the city’s gun laws. The gun bill, co-sponsored by Reps. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) and Mark Souder (R-Ind.), was introduced previously and stalled. The measure now stands a good chance of gaining approval by the House of Representatives because of an unusual legislative maneuver, congressional staff members and observers said. Souder said he acted because the D.C. government has made only limited changes to its 32-year-old handgun ban since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last month that it was unconstitutional.”

“A curb on gay marriage will fall; Repeal of 1913 law goes next to Patrick; Nonresidents to get right to wed in Mass.” This front page article appears today in The Boston Globe.

The New York Times reports today that “Same-Sex Marriage Barrier Nears End in Massachusetts.”

And The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts reports that “House OKs repeal of marriage law.”

In jurisprudence essays available online at Slate: Cullen Seltzer has an essay entitled “Let Them Be Lawyers: The Supreme Court on the dignity of the mentally ill.”

And Law Professor Eugene Volokh has an essay entitled “Talula Does the Hula From Hawaii: And other names so weird that judges forbade them.”

Available online from law.com: An item headlined “Sizing Up the 2007-08 Supreme Court Term” consists of the transcript of Legal Times’ seventh annual U.S. Supreme Court review. You can also download the complete audio of the event via this link (21.9MB mp3 audio file).

And an article headlined “D.C. Circuit: DOJ Can’t Bar Access to Amnesty Deal” reports on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued last Friday.

“Court to review abortion ruling; Ban on partial-birth procedure, voided in May, to get 2nd look”: This article appears today in The Washington Times.

“Movie on al Qaeda unveiled at tribunal; The Pentagon premiered a controversial, gory movie at a war crimes tribunal showing al Qaeda’s mayhem”: Carol Rosenberg has this article today in The Miami Herald. She also has a news update headlined “Prosecution nearly done in bin Laden’s driver’s case.”

Today in The Los Angeles Times, Carol J. Williams reports that “Guantanamo jurors shown graphic film on Al Qaeda; A lawyer for Salim Ahmed Hamdan objects to some of the footage, calling it ‘extraordinarily prejudicial.’”

The New York Times reports that “In Detainee Trial, System Is Tested.”

And The Washington Post reports that “Work for Bin Laden Is Said to Predate War; Former Driver on Trial at Guantanamo.”

“Who’s a journalist? The proposed federal law to protect reporters and their sources draws a tenuous line between bloggers and professionals.” Scott Gant had this op-ed yesterday in The Los Angeles Times.