“Justices Hear Bias Case on Maternity, Pensions and Timing”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

“Eight and on Trial: Young Defendants Throw Criminal Justice Into Confusion.” Dionne Searcey has this article today in The Wall Street Journal.

“Full 6th Circuit Weighs NEA Suit Against NCLB”: At “The School Law Blog” of Education Week, Mark Walsh has a post about a case argued yesterday before the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that begins, “The educational and fiscal ramifications of the federal No Child Left Behind Act came under legal review today in an ornate federal appeals courtroom here in Cincinnati.”

My earlier coverage of the divided three-judge Sixth Circuit panel’s ruling in the case can be accessed here.

“Appeals judges hear Internet freedom of speech case”: The Philadelphia Inquirer today contains an article that begins, “Saying the freedom-of-speech case against the Hermitage School District in Western Pennsylvania would have an ‘incredibly far-reaching effect,’ a federal appeals court judge yesterday questioned whether the district could discipline a student for comments made on the Internet.”

“Death sentences, executions drop in 2008”: Bill Mears of CNN.com has this report.

Today in USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Executions drop to 14-year low in 2008.”

The New York Times reports today that “Executions and Death Sentences in United States Dropped in 2008, Report Finds.”

And The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Report: US executions, death sentences on decline.”

“3rd Circuit Mulls School Discipline for Hoax Web Pages”: Shannon P. Duffy will have this article Thursday in The Legal Intelligencer.

“Liberal Legal Group Is Following New Administration’s Path to Power”: Charlie Savage will have this article Thursday in The New York Times.

“Offer to tape sex nullifies conviction; It’s not prostitution but speech, court says”: Last Friday’s edition of The Concord (N.H.) Monitor contained an article that begins, “A former district court bailiff who offered a couple $50 an hour to videotape them having sex is not guilty of prostitution, because there was no evidence he was satisfying his own sexual pleasure, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday. To find otherwise, the court ruled, would illegally criminalize the production of a sexually explicit but not obscene movie, a venture that is protected as free speech under the state constitution.”

The Associated Press reports that “Court overturns former Franklin court bailiff’s prostitution conviction.”

And today at Adult Video News, Mark Kernes has an article headlined “New Hampshire Upholds Citizens’ Right To Make Sexual Content; It’s not prostitution, says New Hampshire Supreme Court” (caution, linked article contains nudity).

You can access last Thursday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire at this link.

At “The Volokh Conspiracy” today, Eugene Volokh has this post about the ruling.

“The Attorney General Is a Very Busy Man: The Supreme Court seems to think that also makes him immune from litigation.” Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

In addition, Dahlia was featured on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Day to Day” in a segment entitled “Supreme Court Hears Detainee Case” (RealPlayer required).

Learned Foote to clerk for Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski: Foote, who first came to this blog’s attention via this post from Monday, is today the subject of a post by Peter Lattman at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog.”

In today’s mail: A copy of the new book “Courtroom Cowboy: The Life of Legal Trailblazer Jim Beasley,” by Ralph Cipriano. You can read the book’s introduction at this link.

Thanks much to Maxwell S. Kennerly of the “Litigation & Trial” blog for sending this along.

“Court weighs how maternity leaves affect pensions”: The AP has a report that begins, “Several Supreme Court justices questioned on Wednesday whether AT&T Corp. is discriminating against former employees by paying smaller retirement checks to women who took pregnancy leaves in the 1960s and 1970s.”

You can access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen, No. 07-543, at this link.

“Federal judges hear Fla. Christian fraternity case”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A Christian fraternity asked federal judges Wednesday to recognize the group as part of student life at the University of Florida, despite a school rule that bars Gator groups from discriminating based on religion. Beta Upsilon Chi lawyers told a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the university’s policy threatens their core beliefs and that inviting non-Christians would undermine their mission.”

The case was argued today before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

“Romanette, Revisited”: Tony Mauro has this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

A bailout for Detroit, and the federal judiciary: The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Pay raise for judges tucked into bailout plan” that begins, “If the $14 billion bailout plan for U.S. automakers passes, it will help more than just Ford, Chrysler and General Motors. Federal judges would get a pay raise, as well. The raise – labeled a cost of living adjustment – would bring U.S. District court judges up to par with members of Congress, who will receive an almost $5,000 boost on Jan. 1.”

“Robertson case settled; University retains full control of endowment”: The Daily Princetonian has a news update that begins, “The University will maintain complete control of the Robertson Foundation’s $600 million endowment that funds the Wilson School’s graduate program under a settlement agreement ending the lawsuit brought by members of the Robertson family in July 2002, both parties announced this morning.”

The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger has a news update headlined “Princeton U., Robertson family settle $900M lawsuit.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Princeton settles suit, keeps control of donation.”

“High court weighs lawsuit against FBI head, ex-AG”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Supreme Court justices voiced concern Wednesday about including former Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller in a lawsuit that claims prisoners detained after the Sept. 11 attacks were abused because of their religion and ethnicity.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Special legal immunity for handling crises?”

Update: The U.S. Supreme Court has posted the transcript of today’s oral argument in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, No. 07-1015, at this link.

“Judges differ as Davis seeks new trial; Death penalty awaits: Two jurists question viability of condemned man’s claim; a third takes issue with state.” Today in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Bill Rankin has this article reporting on an oral argument that occurred yesterday before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

“Panel of judges hears appeal by Scrushy and Siegelman”: This article appears today in The Mobile Press-Register.

The Birmingham News reports today that “Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, HealthSouth founder Richard Scrushy appeal convictions before 3-judge panel.”

And The New York Times contains an article headlined “Appeal Hearing in Ex-Governor’s Conviction.”

“Obama May Have to Decide on Execution for Accused Terrorists”: James Rowley of Bloomberg News has a report that begins, “President-elect Barack Obama may soon have to choose between executing five confessed plotters of the Sept. 11 attacks or trying them in courts that do more to protect their rights.”

The New York Times today contains a news analysis headlined “Relatives of 9/11 Victims Add a Passionate Layer to Guantanamo Debate.”

The Washington Post today contains an editorial entitled “Trial by Absurdity: The alleged authors of Sept. 11 seek death — and a propaganda coup — in a flawed legal system.”

And The Los Angeles Times contains an editorial entitled “How to try terrorists: A chaotic hearing for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other defendants at Guantanamo Bay puts the spotlight back on the value of military commissions,” while columnist Tim Rutten has an op-ed entitled “Obama’s Gitmo problem: The Bush administration’s abuse of the judicial system will haunt Obama.”

“Gay Marriage Ban Inspires New Wave of Activists”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

“Gay marriage: History, emotion collide in court.” Today’s edition of The Des Moines Register contains an article that begins, “Both sides of the gay marriage debate clashed Tuesday in a historic Iowa Supreme Court battle over the meaning of marriage and the long-term effect of allowing same-sex couples to wed. The decision now falls to the high court, which must choose between the wishes of committed gay couples and the concerns raised by supporters of Iowa’s decade-old marriage law. A ruling is expected next year.”

And The New York Times reports today that “Iowa Justices Hear Same-Sex Marriage Case.”

“Justices Weigh Misconduct in Tennessee Murder Case”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Justices Question Withholding Of Evidence in Capital Case; Tenn. Prosecutors Didn’t Turn Over Proof of Killer’s Drug Use.”

And yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “High Court Hears Appeal From Tennessee Killer” (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg.

“Appeals Court Hears Case of Canadian Citizen Sent by U.S. to Syria”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “Even if the government agreed with a Canadian citizen’s claims that American officials sent him to Syria in 2002 to be tortured, he should not be allowed to sue for damages because there was no Constitutional violation and Congress has not authorized such lawsuits, a Justice Department lawyer argued on Tuesday before a federal appeals court in Manhattan.”

The Toronto Globe and Mail reports today that “Conspiracy against Arar reached to highest levels, U.S. court told.”

The Toronto Star contains an article headlined “U.S. appeals court reconsiders Arar suit against Bush officials; Latest chapter in bid by Canadian to hold those who sent him to Syria for torture accountable.”

Canwest News Service reports that “Appeals court questions U.S. claims about Arar.”

From National Public Radio, yesterday’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Court Weighs ‘Extraordinary Rendition’ Case” (RealPlayer required).

And “The AmLaw Daily” blog has a post titled “Second Circuit Hears Argument in Extraordinary Rendition Case.”

Last night, I had this post linking to C-SPAN’s video coverage (RealPlayer required) of yesterday’s Second Circuit en banc oral argument.

“Peru Sues Yale For Return Of Artifacts”: This article appears today in The Hartford Courant.

The New Haven Register reports today that “Artifacts deal dissolves; Peru takes Yale to court.”

And The Yale Daily News reports that “Peru sues for artifacts.”

You can view a copy of the complaint initiating suit by clicking here.

“Accountability and the Court”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial that begins, “In this country, no one is supposed to be above the law. Even the highest officials must be held accountable when they do wrong. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has spent the last eight years undermining that fundamental American ideal. The Supreme Court has a chance to redress that imbalance.”

Yesterday at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston had this preview of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, No. 07-1015.

“Abortion Foes Open a New Front”: The Wall Street Journal today contains an article that begins, “Abortion opponents are pressing state and local governments to stop sending taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood, arguing that the nonprofit group has plenty of cash and shouldn’t be granted scarce public funds at a time of economic crisis.”

In commentary available online at Slate: John Fabian Witt has an essay entitled “Ye Olde Gitmo: When Americans were unlawful combatants.”

And David Weigel has an essay entitled “Case Not Closed: After losing at the Supreme Court, Obama conspiracy theorists meet the press.”

“Adoption Rights for Gays and Lesbians in Florida: A Trial Court Rules That the State’s Longstanding Ban Must End.” Joanna Grossman has this essay online at FindLaw.

“Modern Departures from the Supreme Court: Party, Pensions, or Power.” Alan Rozzi and Terri L. Peretti have posted this paper at SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“).

“Layshock case becomes free-speech issue; Appeals court to decide whether school exceeded authority in punishing student”: Sunday’s edition of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette contained an article that begins, “What began as a lowbrow parody of a high school principal goes before a federal appeals court this week. The case of Justin Layshock, who lanced his principal with an unflattering Internet ‘profile’ created on a home computer, has become a battleground pitting Pennsylvania school administrators against groups that defend free-speech rights. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia will hear arguments from each side Wednesday.”

In earlier coverage, The Herald of Sharon, Pennsylvania contained articles headlined “Trosch drops defamation suit against 3 of 4 former students“; “Appeals court might hear Layshock case in December“; “Groups support Layshock lawsuit; Say students have right to free speech” and “Principal sues 4 ex-students over profiles on Myspace.”

And at the First Amendment Center, Douglas Lee had an essay about the trial court’s ruling headlined “Lower court takes narrow view of ‘Bong Hits’ ruling.”

The ACLU of Pennsylvania provides access to the appellate briefs via this link.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit assigned to hear oral argument in this appeal tomorrow will consist of Circuit Judges Theodore A. McKee and D. Brooks Smith and Senior Circuit Judge Jane R. Roth.

“Hecht’s fine, like ethics, will disappear: Texas Supreme Court Justice fined for illegal contributions through legal discount got off easy with $29,000 fine that he’ll pay with donations.” This editorial appears today in The Austin American-Statesman.

“Reporter names no sources at deposition; Contempt hearing may be sought in leaks lawsuit”: Today’s edition of The Detroit Free Press contains an article that begins, “For 50 minutes through scores of questions, Detroit Free Press reporter David Ashenfelter declined under oath Monday afternoon to reveal confidential sources in a legal standoff that pits journalistic principles against the obligation to testify under court order. Time and again, the lawyer for ex-federal prosecutor Richard Convertino peppered Ashenfelter with questions trying to discover who leaked word of a confidential Justice Department probe of Convertino’s handling of a discredited Detroit terrorism case.”

The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Reporter ‘takes the Fifth’ on behalf of people’s right to know.”

And The Detroit News reports that “Reporter won’t reveal sources in deposition.”

Access online, on-demand C-SPAN’s broadcast of today’s en banc oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Maher Arar v. John Ashcroft: You can access the oral argument video by clicking here (RealPlayer required). The audio apparently does not begins working properly until 13 minutes and 25 seconds into the broadcast.

“Federal judges hear arguments in Don Siegelman, Richard Scrushy corruption conviction appeal”: The Birmingham News provides this update.

And The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Attorneys: Reverse Siegelman, Scrushy verdicts.”