“Detaining Mr. Marri: The Supreme Court must reverse a federal appeals court decision last week that grants the president sweeping power to deprive anyone of their freedom.” This editorial will appear Sunday in The New York Times.

“Guns ruling spawns legal challenges by felons”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press provides this report.

“Federal law on animal cruelty videos struck down; Overturning a Virginia man’s 2005 conviction, a U.S. appeals court says that depictions of dogfighting and other acts are protected by the 1st Amendment”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s en banc Third Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“U.S. Is Alone in Rejecting All Evidence if Police Err”: Today in The New York Times, Adam Liptak has this article, the latest installment in his “American Exception” series.

“Felons Seeking Bush Pardon Near a Record”: Charlie Savage has this article today in The New York Times.

Another federal appellate court holds that the crime of aggravated identity theft requires proof that the defendant knew that the means of identification belonged to another person: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in a ruling that you can access here, becomes the second federal appellate court to so hold in two days.

Yesterday, in a ruling that you can access here, the majority on a divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel reached the same result. Interestingly, today’s First Circuit ruling was written by a senior Ninth Circuit judge sitting by designation.

“State Supreme Court narrows probable-cause grounds in pot case; Law-enforcement officers who smell marijuana coming from a vehicle can’t arrest all of the occupants, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday”: This article appears today in The Seattle Times.

And The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported today that “Pot smell isn’t cause to arrest everyone in a car; Police need more evidence, state justices say.”

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

By a vote of 10 to 3, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit holds unconstitutional a federal law criminalizing the sale of creation, sale, or possession of depictions of animal cruelty: You can access today’s en banc ruling at this link.

According to the majority’s opinion, the “case is the first prosecution in the nation under [the federal statute in question] to proceed to trial, and this appeal represents the first substantive constitutional evaluation of the statute by a federal appellate court.”

The majority opinion, written by Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith, begins:

The Supreme Court has not recognized a new category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment in over twenty-five years. Nonetheless, in this case the Government invites this Court to take just such a step in order to uphold the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. sec. 48 and to affirm Robert Stevens’ conviction. For the reasons that follow, we decline the Government’s invitation. Moreover, because we agree with Stevens that 18 U.S.C. sec. 48 is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, we will vacate his conviction.

Back in October 2006, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette had an article headlined “Dog fight videos called free speech” reporting on the oral argument of the appeal before the original three-judge Third Circuit panel. It appears that the Third Circuit took the case en banc before that three-judge panel issued any ruling. And in January 2005, The Associated Press reported on the trial of the case in an article headlined “Dogfight video seller on trial for cruelty; Virginia man is first charged under 1999 federal statute.”

In related coverage, a little over one year ago, Adam Liptak of The New York Times had an article headlined “First Amendment Claim in Cockfight Suit.” Liptak’s new beat for The NYTimes is the U.S. Supreme Court, which is where the case that the en banc Third Circuit decided today is likely heading next.

“In this appeal we clarify the extent to which the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 permits the Food and Drug Administration to regulate a common practice of pharmacies known as ‘compounding.'” So begins an opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued today.

As the opinion goes on to explain, “Drug compounding is the process by which a pharmacist combines or alters drug ingredients according to a doctor’s prescription to create a medication to meet the unique needs of an individual human or animal patient.”

Immigration judge’s statement on the record that “[t]he 9th Circuit does not comply with Supreme Court law with regard to asylum” proves not to be a successful strategy for achieving affirmance in the Ninth Circuit: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this ruling today.

“Judge: ‘World’s eyes on Guantanamo’; Lawyers: no appeal now.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

You can access at this link the opinion that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued today in Hamdan v. Gates.

“Government says it can hold captured teen fighters”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The Bush administration is telling a federal appeals court that it has the authority to detain a Canadian who was captured in Afghanistan when he was 15 and is accused of killing a U.S. soldier.”

D.C. Circuit holds, for purposes of an employment discrimination claim based on disability asserted under the federal Rehabilitation Act, that engaging in sexual relations qualifies as a major life activity: Two judges on the three-judge panel joined in today’s ruling, while another dissented on other grounds.

“Bin Laden driver is 1st test of Gitmo trials”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Ashcroft Testifies on Interrogation Policy; Letter of Law Was Followed, He Says”: This article appears today in The Washington Post. And Dana Milbank’s “Washington Sketch” column is headlined “John Ashcroft, Riding Back on a White Horse.”

“State Supreme Court gives new protection to endangered species; Commercial interests may be liable for unforeseen losses of wildlife, unanimous court rules”: Maura Dolan has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

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

“Gun Registrations Off To Slow Start in D.C.; One Application Received on First Day”: This article appears today in The Washington Post, along with an article headlined “Why a New Revolver Is Still Out of Reach: City’s One Dealer Has Inactive License.”

The Washington Times reports today that “District begins licensing pistols; Appeal victor turned away.”

And USA Today contains an article headlined “No rush to register handguns in D.C.; Emergency law in effect after justices toss ban.”

“Riviera Beach now can enforce ‘saggy pants’ law; Fixing a legal glitch means police can enforce ordinance”: The South Florida Sun-Sentinel contains this article today.

“Rulings Clear Military Trial of a Detainee”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

The Washington Post reports today that “Judge Says Detainee’s Trial Will Proceed.”

Carol J. Williams of The Los Angeles Times reports that “First Guantanamo war-crimes trial set to begin; A federal judge rejects defense appeals to postpone the proceedings — slated to start Monday — against Osama bin Laden’s former driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Judge allows Hamdan military trial to go forward; It’s a win for the Bush administration, which insists that Guantánamo proceedings are necessary to fight the war on terror.”

And The Washington Times reports that “Judge allows start of military tribunals.”

“Judge Tells Reporter To Explain Spy Story”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “A federal judge in California has ordered Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz to appear in court next week to explain why he needs to protect the identity of confidential sources he used in writing an article about a spy case, and why he considered the subject newsworthy.”

“Texas Turns Aside Pressure on Execution of 5 Mexicans”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

Unless you’re a law blogger, that is: Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal has a report headlined “D.C. Circuit: Sleeping Is ‘Major Life Activity.’”

“What the Past Term Reveals About the Roberts Court: Evidence that the Court Is Disturbingly Elitist and Anti-Democratic.” Edward Lazarus has this essay online at FindLaw.

Available online from National Public Radio: This evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Ruling Allows First Guantanamo Trial To Proceed” featuring Nina Totenberg.

And yesterday evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Paul Goldstein’s A Patently Thrilling Legal Drama” reviewing Law Professor Paul Goldstein‘s new novel, “A Patent Lie.”

“Court says jury selection was racially tainted, orders new trial”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update that begins, “An Oakland man who was convicted of stabbing his mother in 1997 and sentenced to life in prison was granted a new trial Thursday by a federal appeals court, which said the prosecutor removed at least one black juror for racial reasons.”

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

“Trial of bin Laden’s driver can proceed, judge rules”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers has this report.

The New York Times provides a news update headlined “Judge Refuses to Postpone Trial of Bin Laden’s Driver.”

The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Judge Refuses to Halt Guantanamo Detainee’s Military Trial.”

And The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Trial of Guantanamo detainee can start, judge rules; Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden, would be the first Guantanamo prisoner to come before a military tribunal; His lawyers are challenging the forum’s constitutionality.”

“Turnout Low on First Day of Handgun Registration”: The Washington Post provides this news update. First in line was Dick A. Heller, who succeeded in striking down D.C.’s handgun ban but who failed in his first attempt today at registering his handguns.

“Today we join the D.C. Circuit in holding that the crime of aggravated identity theft requires proof that, among other things, the defendant knew that the means of identification belonged to another person. It is not enough to prove only that the defendant knew he was using a false document.” So begins the majority opinion that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

“US judge OKs first Guantanamo Bay detainee trial”: The Associated Press provides this report.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Judge refuses to delay war crimes trial.”

In case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Guantanamo military commission judge denies motion to dismiss charges and motion to reconsider ruling on personal jurisdiction: I have posted online these rulings here (motion to dismiss ruling) and here (personal jurisdiction ruling).

In the personal jurisdiction ruling, the military judge holds that the U.S. Supreme Court‘s recent ruling in Boumediene v. Bush does not mandate application of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to Guantanamo proceedings.

Second Circuit condemns reopening of the evidence in a federal criminal trial at the prosecution’s behest after counsel had delivered their summations, the trial judge had given the jury instructions on the law, and the jury had begun deliberating: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued this decision today.

“Judges, taxes may not make McCain’s case”: Bruce Bartlett has this essay today at Politico.com.

“Suspect’s Work With Bin Laden Alleged; FBI Agent Testifies at Pretrial Hearing”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“Court blocks Medi-Cal pharmacy payment cuts”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has this article reporting on an order that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued last Friday.

“Bid to ban gay marriage will stay on ballot, California Supreme Court rules; Activists sought to remove Proposition 8, which if passed would limit marriage to opposite-sex couples”: Maura Dolan has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Challenge tossed, gay marriage ban on ballot.”

Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “Court lets stand initiative on same-sex marriages; Now looks like voters will settle controversy.”

And law.com reports that “Challenge to Calif. Gay Unions Measure Fails.”