“Burris asks Illinois Supreme Court to confirm his nomination”: CNN.com provides this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “Burris goes to court to push appointment through.”

“Chief Justice: Judges want equal treatment.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog” about Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.’s 2008 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary.

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “Annual Report on the Judiciary: Costs are Down, and Pay Needs to Go Up.”

Unlike in previous years, when the annual report was embargoed until midnight on January 1st, this year the report was only embargoed until 6 p.m. on December 31st.

“Today, our court promulgates an astonishing new rule of law for the nine Western States. Henceforth, a plaintiff who claims to feel offended by the mere thought of associating with people who hold different views has suffered a legally cognizable injury-in-fact.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today issued an order denying rehearing en banc in Barnes-Wallace v. San Diego.

Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain has issued an opinion dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc that begins:

Today, our court promulgates an astonishing new rule of law for the nine Western States. Henceforth, a plaintiff who claims to feel offended by the mere thought of associating with people who hold different views has suffered a legally cognizable injury-in-fact. No other circuit has embraced this remarkable innovation, which contradicts nearly three decades of the Supreme Court’s standing jurisprudence. In practical effect, the three-judge panel majority’s unprecedented theory creates a new legal landscape in which almost anyone who is almost offended by almost anything has standing to air his or her displeasure in court. I must respectfully, but vigorously, dissent from our failure to rehear this case en banc.

Including Judge O’Scannlain, a total of six judges joined in this dissent.

My first post about the Ninth Circuit’s original ruling on this appeal appeared on December 18, 2006.

“Louisiana to appeal 2 dads on birth certificate”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The state of Louisiana says it will appeal a federal court order to put the names of two adoptive fathers on their son’s birth certificate. State Health Secretary Alan Levine said Wednesday the state is being forced to grant more legal recognition to the couple than required under the U.S. Constitution.”

And in earlier coverage, The Times-Picayune of New Orleans last Saturday published an article headlined “Record must have both men’s names; Couple sues in state over adopted boy.”

U.S. District Judge Jay C. Zainey issued last week’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

“Court rules against man who taped nude girlfriend”: Today’s edition of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel contains an article that begins, “Someone who agrees to get naked in front of another person still retains an expectation that the nudity won’t be recorded, the state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday. In a split decision, the court upheld the felony conviction of a man who secretly videotaped his girlfriend while she was nude.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruling appears at this link.

“Does Senate have authority to block Blagojevich’s appointment of Roland Burris? Supreme Court has said in past that House and Senate cannot refuse to seat someone who meets qualifications.” Mike Dorning and David G. Savage have this article today in The Chicago Tribune.

“Judges rule three-strikes sentence unconstitutional; The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals says a 28-years-to-life penalty for a sex offender who failed to register at the proper time is cruel and unusual punishment”: Carol J. Williams has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

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

“Atheists Sue to Get Prayer, God Out of Obama’s Swearing-In”: The Washington Post contains this article today.

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “Atheists Sue Chief Justice Over Inaugural Oath.”

“Judge Agrees With Bush in Ruling on 2 Detainees”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Judge rules against two detainees.”

“Pyrrhic Torture Trials”: Today in The Washington Post, columnist Ruth Marcus has an op-ed that begins, “Should Bush administration officials be put on trial for crimes such as authorizing torture?”

“State judges’ vacation reduced; Plan meant to save $685,000 lets them buy back time off”: The Baltimore Sun today contains an article that begins, “The Court of Appeals decided yesterday to reduce vacation days for judges and allow them to buy back leave time, a cost-saving plan that some judges grudgingly backed amid concerns that it would burden those in busier trial courts. The appellate court unanimously approved the measure, saying the judiciary wants to do its part to help fix Maryland’s budget crisis.”

“Fumo lawyer objects to blog trial coverage”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Daily News.

“Gonzales Defends Role in Antiterror Policies”: Today in The Wall Street Journal, Evan Perez has an article that begins, “Alberto Gonzales, who has kept a low profile since resigning as attorney general nearly 16 months ago, said he is writing a book to set the record straight about his controversial tenure as a senior official in the Bush administration.”

“On busy last day, Williams works on health benefits case”: The Providence (R.I.) Journal today contains an article that begins, “On his last day as the head of the state judiciary, Supreme Court Chief Justice Frank J. Williams yesterday spent two hours in mediation with lawyers for the City of Providence and the municipal unions over whether the self-insured city can go ahead with switching its health-benefits administrators tomorrow.”

“The Supreme Court’s Latest Decision on Federal Preemption of State Law: Why it Is Significant, and What it Hints About the Likely Outcome of the Upcoming Major Preemption Decision.” Anthony J. Sebok has this essay online at FindLaw.

“Court: Religious objection won’t stop DNA sampling.” Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press provides this report.

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

“Court upholds conviction for videotaping nude girlfriend”: The Wisconsin State Journal provides a news update that begins, “In a decision that will have an impact on a similar Dane County case, a state appeals court ruled Tuesday that it was illegal for a former Waunakee High School teacher to secretly videotape his then-girlfriend in the nude, even though she was willingly nude in front of him.”

And The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Wis. court: Nude people still have privacy rights.”

You can access today’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals at this link.

“Sex Offender Keeps Law License”: At his “New York Personal Injury Law Blog” today, Eric Turkewitz has a post that begins, “In a decision released today, a sharply divided panel of the Appellate Division, First Department determined that an admitted sex offender will keep his New York law license.” The court’s ruling can be accessed here.

“Doe v. SexSearch Affirmed by 6th Circuit, But Not on 230 Grounds”: Eric Goldman has this post at his “Technology & Marketing Law Blog.”

My earlier coverage of today’s Sixth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“This case is finito.” So ends an opinion that Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner issued today in typescript form on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of that court.

A sentence of 28 years to life imprisonment under California’s “Three Strikes” law for failing to update annual sex offender registration within five working days of one’s birthday violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment: So holds a mostly conservative three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in an opinion issued today.

Update: At his “Sentencing Law and Policy” blog, Doug Berman has this post about the ruling.

“Group sues to reinstate firearms ban”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence sued the Bush administration Tuesday in hopes of stopping a new policy that would allow people to carry concealed, loaded guns in most national parks and wildlife refuges.”

Via the Brady Campaign’s web site, you can access a news release titled “Brady Campaign Sues Interior Department Over Rule Allowing Concealed Guns In Parks,
Will Seek Injunction” and the complaint initiating suit.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has today issued a decision making it much more difficult to grant class certification in antitrust cases: Because the decision is not yet available over that court’s web site, I have uploaded a copy of today’s ruling in In re: Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation at this link.

Update: The opinion is now also available via the Third Circuit’s web site at this link.

D.C. Circuit rejects prisoner’s challenge under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit at this link.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has today issued its ruling in John Doe v. SexSearch.com: The opinion begins:

Pseudonymous plaintiff John Doe appeals the dismissal of his complaint against defendant, SexSearch.com (“SexSearch”), an online adult dating service that facilitates sexual encounters between its members. Doe used SexSearch to meet Jane Roe, who described herself as an eighteen-year-old female. The two met and had sexual relations. Roe, it turned out, was actually fourteen years old, and Doe was consequently arrested and charged with three counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. In an unusual case of first impression, Doe then filed suit against SexSearch, alleging an array of violations under Ohio law, most of which are variations on the claim that SexSearch is at fault for Doe’s sexual relationship with a minor and the harm that resulted from his arrest.

In summarizing today’s holding, the court explains, “Because we agree with the district court that Doe’s complaint failed to state a claim, we do not reach the question of whether the Communications Decency Act provides SexSearch with immunity from suit. We do not adopt the district court’s discussion of the Act, which would read section 230 more broadly than any previous Court of Appeals decision has read it, potentially abrogating all state- or common-law causes of action brought against interactive Internet services.” The district court’s opinion granting defendants’ motion to dismiss can be accessed here.

You can access the plaintiff’s complaint initiating this lawsuit at this link. You can access defendants’ motion to dismiss at this link. Plaintiff’s response to the motion to dismiss can be accessed here, while defendants’ reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss can be viewed at this link.

Justin Bourne of Adult Video News covered the federal district court’s decision dismissing the lawsuit in an article headlined “U.S. Judge rules in Favor of SexSearch; Federal court dismisses ‘negligence’ claim against networking and dating sites.” [Caution — article contains images that are not work-safe.] And more recently, in covering the appellate proceeding, Bourne had a blog post titled “Sex Search Files Appellate Brief in U.S. Court of Appeals; Company urges court to deny appeal against lawsuit’s dismissal.”

“Lawsuit begins with end of parrot; Inmates’ rights questioned after man not allowed to make call”: Yesterday’s edition of The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware contained an article that begins, “The death of Freddy the parrot could be debated in federal courts. It also could raise questions about the right of the accused to get ‘one phone call’ after being arrested.” (Via “Obscure Store.”)

“Fate of inmates unsettled if Gitmo closes; Terror experts assess options, risks to U.S.” This article appears today in USA Today.

And online at FindLaw, Joanne Mariner has an essay entitled “Advice to Obama on Closing Guantanamo.”

“State Supreme Court rules those on probation must tell officers about any pet they own”: The Press-Enterprise of Riverside, California today contains an article that begins, “Whether it’s Fluffy or Fido, probationers must tell probation officers about any pet they own, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday. The decision kills a 2005 challenge from San Bernardino County Superior Court saying that the pets requirement was too general. In the opinion, the court cited the need to protect probation officers from dangerous animals when they check on probationers.”

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

Available online from law.com: Shannon P. Duffy of The Legal Intelligencer reports that “3rd Circuit Slashes Punitives, Imposes 1-1 Ratio.” You can access at this link last week’s non-precedential ruling of a two-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

And in other news, an article is headlined “Will Famed Rocket Docket Fizzle Out in Wake of Federal Circuit Ruling? Texas court slapped down for holding onto case; ruling bolsters recent 5th Circuit order.”

“Bush has successfully defended anti-terrorism policies; Domestic surveillance, rounding up Muslim men after Sept. 11, harsh interrogations — the administration has beat back nearly all legal challenges to its controversial programs”: David G. Savage has this front page news analysis today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Civil rights pioneer leaving appellate bench”: This article appears today in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

“In N.C., death penalty gets rarer; In the 31 years since the punishment was reinstated, the numbers of death cases heard and sentences handed out have steeply declined”: The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina today contains an article that begins, “North Carolina will finish this year with just one defendant sentenced to death, a record low since the penalty was reinstated 31 years ago.”

“The contributions of United States Supreme Court Associate Justices Joseph Story, Louis D. Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, and William J. Brennan, Jr. will be commemorated next September with the issuance of the United States Supreme Court Justices stamps.” So announced the U.S. Postal Service in a news release issued today. You can view an image of the forthcoming postage stamps by clicking here.

“Liberal legal group comes to the fore”: Politico.com today has an article that begins, “Sixteen appointees and advisers helping president-elect Barack Obama’s Justice Department transition efforts all recently sat on the board of an organization little known outside legal circles: The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.”

“Sixth Circuit Panel, Acting Sua Sponte, Strikes Down Statute Prohibiting Driving When Driver’s Vision Is Obstructed by Dangling or Suspended Objects”: Orin Kerr has this lengthy post today at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”