“State high court could be shorthanded till February”: This article appears today in The Honolulu Star-Bulletin.

“The Office Pool, 2009”: Columnist William Safire has this op-ed today in The New York Times. Questions 8 and 10 involve the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Judgeship screening panel sets to work”: The Providence (R.I.) Journal contains this article today, along with an article headlined “Nominating process intended to keep out political influences.”

“Holder’s hearing might be rocky; GOP could grill Cabinet nominee”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.

“Naming names: Court weighs whether to identify authors of critical and anonymous postings on the Internet.” Today’s edition of The Baltimore Sun contains an article that begins, “You may not be as anonymous online as you think. Maryland’s highest court will soon decide how easy it is to unmask those who use pseudonyms to post critical comments on the Internet. So far, the state has been operating without a set of rules for identifying those people, but the issue has surfaced over criticism of an Eastern Shore developer. The issue of Internet anonymity has cropped up in other courts around the country, but this is the first time that Maryland’s Court of Appeals has confronted it.”

“U.S. Supreme Court is asked to look at Colleyville exorcism case ruling”: This article appeared yesterday in The Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

“Split appeals court upholds bank robbery sentence”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A federal appeals court has upheld a 22-year prison sentence for a convicted bank robber, determining there was enough evidence for nearly tripling the original sentence based on two other charges he was acquitted of in connection with the 2003 crime.”

My earlier coverage of Wednesday’s en banc Sixth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Reform judicial nominations”: The Palm Beach Post today contains an editorial that begins, “As became evident this month, Florida gives the governor too much power over selecting judges.”

“Navy, environmentalists settle sonar lawsuit”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The Navy has settled a lawsuit filed by environmentalists challenging its use of sonar in hundreds of submarine-hunting exercises around the world.”

And The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Lawsuit on whales and sonar is settled; Environmental groups concerned about the effect on whales claim victory, as does the military; The Navy says the deal does not expand protections; The Supreme Court recently decided a similar case.”

“Florida high court to rule on same-sex adoption ban; Florida has only ban in U.S.” This article appeared yesterday in The News-Press of Fort Myers, Florida.

“Six judges in running for vacancy on Alaska Supreme Court”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Laws to Track Sex Offenders Encouraging Homelessness”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“Chief Judge Is Retiring, Leaving Trail of Successes for Women on the Bench”: Sunday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an article that begins, “It was no secret that Gov. Mario M. Cuomo wanted a woman on the New York State Court of Appeals.”

And earlier this week at the “Concurring Opinions” blog, Lawrence Cunningham had a post titled “Humble Tribute to Chief Judge Judith Kaye.”

“Kevin Rudd may take Guantanamo Bay inmates”: Today’s issue of The Australian contains an article that begins, “Kevin Rudd has left open the possibility of Australia taking former inmates from the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, but warned that any US request for an inmate to come would be subject to legal criteria and assessed on a case-by-case basis.”

“A child soldier or just a child? Omar Khadr was 15 when he was captured in Afghanistan in 2002; His Guantanamo trial raises ethical questions.” Carol J. Williams has this front page article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Federal judges call for higher pay”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press provides this report.

“Justice O’Connor had more Ohio votes than Obama”: This article appears today in The Dayton Daily News.

And in news regarding the other Justice O’Connor, The News-Gazette of Champaign, Illinois reports today that “UI honoring retired Justice O’Connor.”

“Stripper Idol gets TV show all hot and bothered”: Columnist John Kelso has this essay today in The Austin American-Statesman about a lawsuit filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

And in earlier coverage, last Thursday TMZ.com had a post titled “‘A.I.’ Suing The Pants Off ‘Stripper Idol.’”

“A Parting Shot at Women’s Rights”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial that begins, “Undermining women’s reproductive rights and access to health care has been a pervasive theme of the outgoing administration.”

“R.I. state prison gears up for the switch to digital on 1,500 TVs”: The Providence Journal contains this article today.

“SJC nominee doesn’t play to crowd; Observers call Gants intelligent, impartial”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.

“Calif. Supreme Court Won’t Take Up Judge Perks; State high court’s unanimous vote means that judges will lose the perks unless lawmakers decide to help”: law.com provides this report.

“The danger of DNA: It isn’t perfect; By far the most reliable forensic science, it still has limits: Samples can be contaminated and may go untested for years; And collecting it may violate privacy laws.” Maura Dolan and Jason Felch will have this lengthy article Friday in The Los Angeles Times.

“Kentucky’s limits on direct wine sales rejected, but confusion remains”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers provides this report.

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

“Uncertainty shrouds 17 unusual detainees; The question of what to do with 17 Uighur men held at Guantanamo is one of the challenges awaiting an Obama administration seeking to close the prison camps”: Carol Rosenberg has this article today in The Miami Herald.

“Court rules Mother’s Day giveaways are legal”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “‘Ladies’ night’ discounts at the local pub are out. But a Mother’s Day giveaway of tote bags to female baseball fans is OK, even under California’s tough anti-discrimination law. That’s because the Mother’s Day giveaway is not based on sex stereotypes and doesn’t cut ticket prices, said a state appeals court in Santa Ana, which published as a statewide precedent last week its November ruling.”

And Monday’s edition of The Orange County Register contained an article headlined “Court: Angels not anti-man for giving totes to women only; Appellate court finds men were not discriminated against in Mother’s Day promotion at Angel Stadium.” Back on February 2, 2007, The OCRegister covered the trial court’s ruling in an article headlined “Suit plaintiff strikes out against Angels; Judge dismisses bias claim contending men were discriminated against in promotion for tote on Mother’s Day at Angel Stadium.”

You can access the recently published ruling of the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, at this link.

“Calif. Court Limits What Samaritans Can Safely Do; Woman Pulled From Wrecked Car Can Sue for Injuries”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

And today in The Los Angeles Times, columnist Patt Morrison has an op-ed entitled “California has no room for good Samaritans; We had better do something to encourage do-gooders after the state Supreme Court’s ruling that says people attempting to rescue others in emergencies can be held liable for damages.”

My earlier coverage of last week’s Supreme Court of California ruling appears at this link.

“Court denies Coleman request on duplicate ballots; The justices said the Coleman claim that some ballots may have been double-counted would be better resolved in a separate court action than by the state Canvassing Board”: The Minneapolis Star Tribune provides this news update.

And The St. Paul Pioneer Press provides a news update headlined “Court says alleged duplicate ballots can be counted.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Minnesota at this link.

On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “Is Bush Planning Pardons For His Administration?“; “Wal-Mart To Settle Class Action Lawsuits“; and “Successful Madoff Investors Worry About Lawsuits.”

RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

Sixth Circuit affirms federal district court ruling that held unconstitutional certain provisions of Kentucky’s laws regulating shipments into Kentucky from small out-of-state farm wineries: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit at this link.

According to today’s ruling, the objectionable aspect of the regulation in question required a customer who resides in Kentucky to appear in person at the out-of-state small farm winery to make a purchase before that winery could ship the purchase to the customer in Kentucky.

Update: The Associated Press reports that “Court upholds allowing wine shipments into Ky.”

By a vote of 9 to 6, the en banc Sixth Circuit holds that a federal district court may enhance a convicted criminal defendant’s offense level under the federal Sentencing Guidelines based on conduct underlying offenses for which the defendant was acquitted: You can access today’s ruling at this link.

The central holding of the majority opinion is that “[s]o long as the defendant receives a sentence at or below the statutory ceiling set by the jury’s verdict, the district court does not abridge the defendant’s right to a jury trial by looking to other facts, including acquitted conduct, when selecting a sentence within that statutory range.” The majority opinion explains that “[the defendant] thus is not being ‘sentenced for acquitted conduct’ when [the defendant’s] sentencing judge takes that conduct into account in determining a sentence for the crime of which [the defendant] was convicted, as long as the sentence imposed falls within the range prescribed by law for that convicted conduct.”

“Wal-Mart settles dozens of worker class-action lawsuits; The retail giant will pay as much as $640 million to settle dozens of wage-and-hour class-action suits across the U.S.; The agreement excludes a California case under appeal”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

And The New York Times reports today that “Wal-Mart Settles 63 Lawsuits Over Wages.”

“Is the Bush administration criminally liable for its lawlessness? The culpability for flouting national and international conventions against torture and spying is shared and is being addressed by the proper institutions.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“The Right to a Day in Court”: The New York Times today contains an editorial that begins, “The Supreme Court has made it more likely that four former Guantanamo detainees will at last be given a fair hearing of their charges that they were tortured and denied their religious rights.”

“Parents sue zoo, city in fatal tiger attack”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “The parents of a San Jose teenager who was mauled to death by a Siberian tiger at the San Francisco Zoo last Christmas Day sued the city and the zoo Tuesday, saying zoo officials ignored warnings that the walls of the tiger’s enclosure were dangerously low.”