“In Reversal, Court Allows a Bush Plan on Pollution”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

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

“Brown’s stand on Prop. 8 raises new questions; Despite his support for gay marriage, some believe his full 111-page opinion could aid its opponents”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

And today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article headlined “Brown first in decades to go against voters” that begins, “Attorney General Jerry Brown’s legal challenge to California’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage marks the first time that the state’s top lawyer has refused to defend a newly enacted ballot measure since 1964 – another epic discrimination case that eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“Untie the hands of good Samaritans: The Legislature should come to the rescue after a state Supreme Court ruling restricts what people can do to help in an emergency.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Air travelers’ bill of rights still grounded; Advocates pin their hopes on the next Congress to pass airline rules that would give passengers guarantees against long waits on the tarmac”: Carol J. Williams has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“China’s Capital Cases Still Secret, Arbitrary”: This front page article appears today in The Washington Post.

“Panel recommends pay raises for state judges”: The Baltimore Sun today contains an article that begins, “At a time when state workers are being furloughed and face possible layoffs, Maryland judges would get a pay raise of nearly $40,000 over the next four years under a plan hatched by an influential commission that recommends salaries for those on the bench.”

“Give him back his right to bear arms, highest court rules”: This article appears today in The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger.

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

“Hire-a-judge law may come to life”: The Providence (R.I.) Journal today contains an article that begins, “The ACLU is opposing a state Supreme Court proposal that would allow litigants in civil cases to hire retired judges to hear cases in secret, charging the process would create a ‘two-tiered system of justice’ that ‘allows for swift resolution of cases only for those wealthy enough to afford it.'”

“Altria Ruling Ignites Legal Moves; Effort to Reopen Multibillion-Dollar Case Promises to Gain Fresh Life”: Brent Kendall of Dow Jones Newswires has an article that begins, “The Supreme Court’s ruling last week allowing smokers in Maine to sue Altria Group Inc.’s Philip Morris unit for allegedly deceptive advertising of ‘light’ cigarettes already is prompting new legal activity, including an effort to revive a multibillion-dollar case against the tobacco company that had been thrown out. The high court’s decision came just in time for St. Louis trial lawyer Stephen Tillery, who filed a legal motion Thursday seeking to reopen a $10.1 billion judgment in Illinois he obtained against Philip Morris in 2003. The judgment was later tossed out by the Illinois Supreme Court, which said Mr. Tillery’s plaintiffs couldn’t sue the tobacco company for marketing cigarettes with ‘light’ and ‘low tar’ descriptions.”

“Court limits appeals; State’s justices rule against free legal representation for cases between 1994 and 2005”: The Detroit News today contains an article that begins, “Poor defendants who want to appeal a case after they pleaded guilty or no contest cannot get free legal representation if they were convicted between 1994 and 2005, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled Monday. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 struck down as unconstitutional a Michigan law that barred the right to an appellate attorney for defendants who pleaded guilty or no contest. On Monday, the state’s High Court ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision three years ago applies only to defendants who were convicted after the federal ruling, or before the law barring automatic appeals went into effect in 1994.”

And The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Mich. court: Ruling on legal aid not retroactive.”

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

“Contempt order sought against Free Press reporter”: The Detroit Free Press provides a news update that begins, “Former federal prosecutor Richard Convertino wants Free Press reporter David Ashenfelter held in contempt of court for refusing to reveal confidential sources in a U.S. Justice Department probe of Convertino’s handling of a discredited Detroit terrorism case.”

The Detroit News has an update headlined “Judge asked to find reporter in contempt for failing to reveal source.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Atty seeks contempt order for Detroit reporter.”

“Court reinstates clean air rule during EPA fix”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “In a ruling hailed by environmentalists, a federal appeals court on Tuesday reinstated one of President George W. Bush’s clean air regulations while the Environmental Protection Agency makes court-mandated changes.”

Bloomberg News reports that “EPA Power-Plant Limits to Remain Pending Redraft.”

And Dow Jones Newswires report that “US Court Temporarily Reinstates EPA Clean Air Interstate Rule.”

You can access today’s decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, on panel rehearing, at this link.

“Dan Rather Hopes To Tell His Bush Story In Court”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“Supreme Court watchers eye Obama”: United Press International provides this report.

“Interrogation Wiggle Room? If it considers some leeway for the CIA, the Obama team shouldn’t give ground on torture.” This editorial appears today in The Washington Post.

“Budget woes are forcing courts to cut back on judges”: The Salt Lake Tribune today contains an article that begins, “State court officials said Monday they plan to leave judicial vacancies unfilled indefinitely — an unprecedented move tied to the state’s budget woes. The first casualty is Judge Judith Billing’s seat on the Utah Court of Appeals, which will remain open when she retires Dec. 31.”

In commentary available online from FindLaw: Sherry F. Colb has an essay entitled “The U.S. Supreme Grants Review in Rivera v. Illinois: Reconciling Peremptory Challenges, Racial Discrimination and Harmless Error.”

And Marci Hamilton has an essay entitled “How the Bush Administration’s Approach to Healthcare Providers’ ‘Conscience Rights’ Illustrates Its Troublingly Unilateral Exercise of Power.”

“Judge Allen gets Jan. 6 date for reprimand”: Paul Flemming has this post at The Tallahassee Democrat’s “UpdateCapitol” blog.

“Gov. Charlie Crist’s calls for diverse judicial picks might lead to lawsuit”: Today’s edition of The Orlando Sentinel contains an article that begins, “A ‘broad and diverse’ group of Florida lawyers is weighing a lawsuit over Gov. Charlie Crist’s efforts to force two judicial nominating panels to send him more-diverse judicial picks.”

And today’s edition of The Miami Herald contains an article headlined “Lawyers: Politics swayed Frank Jimenez’s nomination to court.”

“European Countries May Take Detainees; Under Bush, Nations Refused to Resettle Guantanamo Prisoners”: The Washington Post contains this front page article today.

“Families Who Sued Libya See Their Victory Voided; U.S. Pact Nullifies $6 Billion Award in ’89 Bombing Over Africa”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“Another jail Christmas for Chadwick”: The Philadelphia Inquirer today contains an article that begins, “For the 14th Christmas morning in a row, H. Beatty Chadwick will wake up behind bars on Thursday. The former Main Line lawyer has spent nearly 14 years in the Delaware County jail for contempt of court – a U.S. record for time served on that charge. Neither the passage of time nor a battle with cancer has won sympathy for Chadwick from judges who believe he hid $2.5 million after his wife began divorce proceedings against him.”

“The Debate Over Who Pays Fees When Litigants Mount Attacks”: Dan Slater has this article today in The Wall Street Journal.

“Top court stirs up rules for DUI stops; Upholds conviction where girl told on dad”: Today’s edition The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger contains an article that begins, “The teenager and her father argued and she called police to report the dispute. As officers were on their way to the pair’s Clifton home, she called back, saying he had gotten in his car and driven off. He was drunk, she told them. The father was stopped and arrested for drunken driving. Yesterday the state Supreme Court upheld the man’s conviction, concluding a person can be stopped on suspicion of drunken driving on the basis of a reliable report that the person was intoxicated. The high court ruled the stop was valid even though the officers who arrested the man had not observed any erratic driving.”

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

“Timing and luck crucial for seat on high court; Connections will matter as much as credentials if spots open up during Obama’s presidency”: Joan Biskupic has this front page article today in USA Today.

“NFL asks appeals court to reconsider suspensions”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The NFL wants an appeals court to reconsider a federal judge’s order that blocked the suspensions of five players for violating the league’s anti-doping policy, according to court documents filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Minnesota.”

“Religious displays to be debated in court; California jurists next year will rule on the constitutionality of crosses on public land, teachers’ speech rights and students’ Bible clubs”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Pentagon sets court date in Cole death penalty case; With clock ticking toward end of Bush administration, there is a flurry of activity planned for the Pentagon’s special war crimes court at Guantanamo”: Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has this news update.

“Bush v. Gore Still Influencing Court Decisions”: This installment of Adam Liptak’s “Sidebar” column will appear Tuesday in The New York Times.

“New appellate judge says he never forgets; A Palm Beach County judge who talked about getting even with lawyers who challenge him was appointed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal by Gov. Charlie Crist”: The Miami Herald today contains an article that begins, “Gov. Charlie Crist promoted Palm Beach Judge Jorge Labarga to a seat on a South Florida appellate court last week despite Labarga’s comments from the bench last year that judges will get even with lawyers who cross them, even if it takes years.”

And in related coverage, on Wednesday, December 10, 2008, The Palm Beach Post reported that “Crist appoints two Palm Beach County judges to appellate bench.”

“To those who question whether the results in constitutional and other cases depend on the membership of the panel, * * * the result in the case currently before our panel is merely a minor illustration of how the judicial system currently operates.” So writes Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, in an opinion concurring in the judgment issued today.

Judge Reinhardt’s separate opinion begins:

Six months ago, the original panel in this case filed a majority opinion holding that Washington state law creates a liberty interest in an inmate’s early release into community custody. We held that the prisoner’s liberty interest is protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that, accordingly, when an inmate becomes eligible for a transfer to community custody, the prison authorities may deny his request for a transfer only for one of the reasons specified in the Washington statute — and only if he is afforded a minimal opportunity to present his side of the story before they do so. In short, we held that Washington prison authorities must follow Washington law and abide by the United States Constitution. Joining me in that opinion was Judge Warren J. Ferguson, who died before we could deny the petition for rehearing; dissenting was Judge Milan Smith. As a result of Judge Ferguson’s death, it was necessary to replace him on this case with another member of this court drawn at random. There were no intervening decisions that changed the law between the time Judge Ferguson and I issued our opinion holding that a liberty interest exists that protects the prisoners’ rights at issue and the time that Judge Smith, joined by our colleague who replaced Judge Ferguson, issued a substitute opinion holding that no such liberty interest exists.

The unnamed colleague who replaced now-deceased Senior Circuit Judge Warren J. Ferguson on this particular three-judge panel is Circuit Judge Richard C. Tallman.

Apropos of my observation in a blog post published a little over one year ago that “[i]n the Ninth Circuit, to a degree not seen in any other federal appellate courts, published opinions often resemble works in progress,” today’s majority opinion, written by Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr., responds to Judge Reinhardt’s separate opinion by noting, among other things, that “in the ninety days between July 11, 2008, and October 9, 2008, at least ten published opinions were withdrawn and at least ten opinions were amended in our circuit.” (footnotes omitted).

Judge Reinhardt wrote the original panel’s opinion in this case. That opinion was withdrawn on August 26, 2008 after Judge Tallman replaced Judge Ferguson on the panel.

On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition“: The broadcast contained audio segments entitled “Will Obama Press To End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’?” and “Abuse Victims Seek Court Date With Vatican.”

RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.

“Here’s one change we need — take politics out of Justice: Clean sweep of U.S. attorneys subverts confidence in legal system.” This editorial appears today in USA Today.

In response, former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh has an op-ed entitled “Don’t fix what ain’t broke: New presidents are entitled to put their own picks in sensitive posts.”

“Hicks keen to clear name and be a boring person”: The Sydney Morning Herald today contains an article that begins, “A free man seven years after his arrest in Afghanistan, David Hicks has signalled his wish to clear his name and remove his terrorism conviction from his record. Almost seven years to the day after he went into custody and one month before a new US president takes office and closes Guantanamo Bay, Mr Hicks regained his freedom yesterday with the expiry of the control order covering his actions.”

“Circumstantial Evidence May Prove Lack of Informed Consent, Says Pa. Supreme Court”: Today in The Legal Intelligencer, Amaris Elliott-Engel has an article that begins, “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that circumstantial evidence provided by a plaintiff’s spouse may be sufficient to prove a lack of informed consent claim.”

You can access last week’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania at this link.