Lawrence Hurley of The Daily Journal of California is reporting: In today’s newspaper, he has front page articles headlined “Supreme Court Ruling Bucks Pre-emption Trend; Despite FTC, Makers of Light Cigarettes Can Face State Deceptive Practices Claims” and “High Court Lets 9th Circuit Sentencing Decision Stand.”

“2nd Circuit Requires Judicial Review Before Security Letter Gag Order”: law.com provides this report.

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

“Judge lifts gag order in Sharp case”: The Ventura County Star today contains an article that begins, “The judge who prohibited The Star from publishing the contents of sealed search warrant documents in a child murder case lifted the temporary gag order Monday. But with Superior Court Judge Ken Riley saying the ruling would not take effect until 5 p.m. Wednesday, editors of The Star decided to immediately publish the information on the newspaper’s Web site Monday and in today’s print edition.” The article that was the subject of the gag order is headlined “Sharp said radio message led him to kill boy.” Today’s newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Why The Star is publishing: A free press overrides all.”

And today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article headlined “Judge won’t lift order he says is unenforceable.”

“Nichols trial holdouts: ‘Show me something’; Jurors for and against death had their minds made up, colleague says.” This article appears today in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

“Papua New Guinea Landowners Face New Hearing in Rio Tinto Case”: Bloomberg News provides a report that begins, “Papua New Guinea landowners who sued Rio Tinto Group over claims of human-rights abuses must show that they aren’t required to exhaust legal options at home before pursuing the U.S. case, an appeals court said.”

My earlier coverage of today’s en banc Ninth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Lawyers Aren’t Special: Why it’s legitimate to investigate the Bush lawyers who may have approved war crimes.” Milan Markovic has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“DC Council sets more gun rules after court ruling”: A report from The Associated Press begins, “The Washington, D.C., city council has passed more regulations on gun owners months after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down its previous ban of handguns. The council voted Tuesday to require gun owners to register their weapons every three years and receive training by a certified firearms instructor.”

“‘Cipollone doctrine’ revived”: Lyle Denniston has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

En banc Ninth Circuit addresses claims of Bougainville, Papua New Guinea residents who allege that they or their family members were victims of numerous violations of international law resulting from Rio Tinto, PLC’s Bougainville mining operations: You can access today’s ruling at this link.

Way back in August 2006, a divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel issued this ruling in the case. The Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc on August 20, 2007, and the case was reargued en banc on October 11, 2007.

Out of the eleven-judge en banc panel, only three judges join in the opinion announcing the judgment of the court. But three other judges — at least one somewhat reluctantly — join in the lead opinion’s result, allowing the court to issue a judgment that speaks for a majority of the en banc panel. The order in which the opinions are organized is, as a result, unusual — after the lead opinion comes a concurring opinion, then a dissenting opinion, then a concurring opinion, and finally a dissent written by Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt in which four judges have joined.

My earlier coverage of the three-judge panel’s ruling in the case can be accessed here and here. And the “Opinio Juris” blog analyzed the three-judge panel’s ruling in posts you can access here and here.

In Guantanamo-related news: Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has articles headlined “Army colonel named chief judge at Guantanamo” and “Guantanamo captive asks Obama to close war court.”

And The New York Times reports today that “U.S. Is Set to Release 3 Detainees From Base.”

“In Blagojevich Case, Is It a Crime, or Just Talk?” The New York Times contains this news analysis today.

“Cheney was key in clearing CIA interrogation tactics; The vice president says that the use of waterboarding was appropriate and that the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should stay open until ‘the end of the war on terror'”: This article — based on an ABC News interview with Vice President Dick Cheney — appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Detainees’ Case Sent Back to Lower Court”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post.

And today in The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that “Supreme Court revives lawsuit by former detainees; Four British Muslims who spent more than two years at Guantanamo want top Pentagon officials held responsible for their treatment.”

“Court Allows Suit Against ‘Light’ Cigarette Makers; Companies Face Huge Liabilities Over Marketing”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post. The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Clearing a Legal Haze: The Supreme Court stops Big Tobacco from blocking lawsuits over deceptive advertising.”

Today in The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that “Supreme Court lets smokers sue over ‘light’ cigarettes; The justices rule that tobacco companies can be sued by smokers who claim they were deceived about health risks; The decision allows class-action suits to proceed in several states.”

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Court splits 5-4 on ‘light’ cigarettes; Case targets claims of deceptive marketing on labels, not health issues.”

In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “Altria Case Deals Blow to Efforts Reining In Lawsuits.”

And in commentary, The New York Times contains an editorial entitled “Big Loss for Big Tobacco.”

“Gitmo Lawyers Are the Latest in Radical Chic: How about some pro bono work for the government?” Today in The Wall Street Journal, columnist William McGurn has an op-ed that begins, “Within the ranks of our leading law schools, law firms and legal centers, it would be hard to find a cause more popular than the detainees of Guantanamo Bay. Every lawyer wants his own detainee or detainee group. The result is that dozens of the world’s most dangerous men now have their own legal Dream Teams.”

“Why Barack Obama, as President, Should Nominate Leading Law Professors for Seats on the Federal Appeals Court”: Law Professor Carl Tobias has this essay online at FindLaw.

“Despite Discipline Panel’s Harsh Words, Federal Judge Beats the Rap”: law.com provides a report that begins, “Judges on a federal discipline panel vindicated Judge Manuel Real on Friday, but they did it through clenched teeth. The Judicial Council of the 9th Circuit dismissed two misconduct complaints accusing Real of failing to state the reasons for his rulings.”

Posted online at the Ninth Circuit’s web site last Friday were a committee report dated September 23, 2008 and an order and memorandum dismissing the misconduct complaints.