On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “Some In D.C. Ready To Pull Trigger On Owning Gun” and “D.C. Drafts New Gun Law” (RealPlayer required).

“Judge Sides With Redskins in Suit Over Team Name”: The Washington Post provides this news update.

You can access the redacted version of the recent ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia at this link.

Ninth Circuit decides copyright dispute over the rights to the book “Lassie Come Home”: You can access today’s ruling at this link.

“Judge sides with Redskins in suit over team name”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A federal judge has sided with the Washington Redskins in a lawsuit brought by American Indians who consider the team’s name racially offensive.”

You can access the redacted version of the recent ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia at this link.

En banc Ninth Circuit reinstates lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a school’s strip-search of a 13-year-old female honor roll student with no prior disciplinary problems based on the allegation she had given a classmate a prescription-strength ibuprofen tablet: The vote on the eleven-judge panel was 6-5 in favor of reinstating the lawsuit. You can access today’s ruling at this link.

In September 2007, the majority on a divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel held, in a ruling you can access here, that the search did not violate the student’s constitutional rights. Three dissenters from today’s en banc ruling share that view, while the other two dissenters agree that the search was unconstitutional but would find that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

My earlier coverage of the case appears here and here.

D.C. Circuit affirms decision refusing to dismiss lawsuit seeking to hold Republic of Sudan and its Interior Ministry responsible for injuries caused in al Qaeda’s simultaneous 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.

“Court tosses White House appeal on visitor logs”: Pete Yost of The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

“Court overturns Bush air pollution rule”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A federal appeals court has struck down an environmental rule that the Bush administration championed as crucial in protecting public health. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously rejected the Clean Air Interstate Rule, saying it found several flaws.”

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

“A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue”: Today in The New York Times, Adam Liptak has an article that begins, “In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a ‘natural-born citizen.'”

On Wednesday, Law Professor Gabriel J.Chin posted to SSRN his article titled “Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship” (abstract with link for download).

En banc Sixth Circuit vacates preliminary injunction limiting the federal government’s ability to seize email communication without first providing the email account holder with prior notice and an opportunity to be heard: The majority in today’s ruling, which issued by a 9-5 margin, holds that the plaintiff’s “constitutional claim is not ripe for judicial resolution.”

Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton wrote the majority opinion. Circuit Judge Boyce F. Martin, Jr. issued the dissenting opinion, which concludes:

While I am saddened, I am not surprised by today’s ruling. It is but another step in the ongoing degradation of civil rights in the courts of this country. The majority makes much of the fact that facial challenges are no way to litigate the constitutional validity of certain laws. Yet our Supreme Court has no problem striking down a handgun ban enacted by a democratically elected city government on a facial basis. See Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, — U.S. –, 2008 WL 2520816 (June 26, 2008). History tells us that it is not the fact that a constitutional right is at issue that portends the outcome of a case, but rather what specific right we are talking about. If it is free speech, freedom of religion, or the right to bear arms, we are quick to strike down laws that curtail those freedoms. But if we are discussing the Fourth Amendment’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, heaven forbid that we should intrude on the government’s investigatory province and actually require it to abide by the mandates of the Bill of Rights. I can only imagine what our founding fathers would think of this decision. If I were to tell James Otis and John Adams that a citizen’s private correspondence is now potentially subject to ex parte and unannounced searches by the government without a warrant supported by probable cause, what would they say? Probably nothing, they would be left speechless.

Judge Martin was the author of the three-judge panel’s decision in this case, which affirmed in large measure the preliminary injunction in question.

My earlier coverage of the three-judge panel’s ruling from June 2007 can be accessed here. And at this link, the Electronic Frontier Foundation provides access to the appellate briefs originally filed in the case.

“No Right to Mezuzot at Condos”: Josh Gerstein has this article today in The New York Sun.

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

“Detainees, as Lawyers, Test System of Tribunals”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

Today in The Miami Herald, Carol Rosenberg reports that “Detainees say they’re being denied legal tools; Alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and others said Pentagon restrictions make it impossible to prepare their legal cases.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “9/11 plotters tell Guantanamo judge of legal woes; Self-described mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and another suspect, who are acting as their own lawyers, tell the judge they can’t file motions or get pretrial documents translated.”

And James Rowley of Bloomberg News reports that “Secrecy Rules Hobble Defense in War-Crimes Case, Lawyers Say.”

“Florida high court OK’s some porn for sex offenders; A sex-offender case from Miami prompted a Florida Supreme Court ruling that allows offenders on probation to possess certain pornography”: The Miami Herald contains this article today.

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

“Judge will move Nichols trial; Building needed: Current one was site of some of the killings.” This article appears today in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

And law.com reports that “As Jury Selection Resumes, Judge Wants Courthouse Shooting Case Moved; Bodiford gives county 10 days to get Nichols trial out of Fulton courthouse.”

“‘Spam King’ to be sentenced; Two-day hearing starts Friday for man who sent 90 million e-mails”: The Seattle Post-Intelligencer today contains an article that begins, “The lineup of people to testify in the sentencing of the 28-year-old so-called King of Spam is so long that it will require an unusual two-day hearing beginning Friday in federal court.”