“Sources: Feds moving al-Marri to Illinois court.” The Peoria Journal Star has a news update that begins, “Nearly six years after he was whisked away after being named an enemy combatant, it appears Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri will come back to the land of Lincoln.”

“Appeals court declines to revive pay raise lawsuit”: The AP has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court Thursday declined to reinstate a lawsuit over how a state government pay raise law was rammed through the Pennsylvania Legislature nearly four years ago. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Harrisburg-based district court judge’s decision in 2006 to throw out the lawsuit by Common Cause of Pennsylvania and others, saying the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to sue.”

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

“Judge dissolves gag order in Kent case”: Mary Flood of The Houston Chronicle has this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Review requested of convicted judge’s retirement.”

“Stevens: No White House oath needed for justices.” Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Justice John Paul Stevens said Thursday Supreme Court justices shouldn’t take their judicial oaths at the White House, calling it ‘inappropriate symbolism’ for an independent branch of government.”

“Media urge unsealing of juror data in Bonds trial”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Prosecutors Prepare Charges Against Final ‘Enemy Combatant’ in U.S.” The Washington Post has this news update.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court trial for Al-Marri?”

“Montana church may shield donations to gay marriage ban; The Baptist church in East Helena isn’t obliged to make campaign finance disclosures because its support for the Montana Marriage Protection Amendment was ‘extremely minimal,’ an appeals court panel ruled”: Carol J. Williams has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

The Associated Press provides a report headlined “Appeals court: State violated church’s rights.”

And law.com reports that “9th Circuit Backs Church on Disclosure of Donors to Campaign Against Gay Marriage.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“Plaintiffs allege that, for the past ten years, members of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have traded judicial decisions favorable to the Pennsylvania General Assembly in return for the legislature’s funding the state judiciary.” Today, however, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a decision affirming the dismissal of the action due to plaintiffs’ lack of standing.

Because Pennsylvania’s Governor, Edward G. Rendell, is both a defendant in the lawsuit and the spouse of a judge currently serving on the Third Circuit, the three-judge panel that issued today’s ruling consisted entirely of federal appellate judges sitting by designation from other U.S. Courts of Appeals.

“Media ask judge in Kent case to end gag order”: Mary Flood has this article today in The Houston Chronicle.

And the newspaper also reports today that “U.S. House committee looks into Kent case.”

“Free the Bush memos: The Obama administration should make public the rest of the memos drafted by his predecessor’s Office of Legal Counsel.” Jameel Jaffer has this op-ed today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Qwest ex-CEO Nacchio loses appeal; Ordered to begin 6-year jail sentence”: This article appears today in The Denver Post, along with articles headlined “Nacchio case could spur others“; “Recovery of fees unlikely for Qwest; Nacchio’s final legal tally could be $75 million, but an expert says it might be ‘very tough’ to get any of it back“; and “Jurors’ Reaction: ‘Refreshing’ affirmation of judicial system.”

The Rocky Mountain News today contains articles headlined “Joe Nacchio’s conviction reinstated; Former Qwest CEO faces prison; Supreme Court his last chance” and “Getting on high court docket no easy task; Opinions mixed on case landing before justices.” In addition, Scott Robinson has an op-ed entitled “Nacchio’s number not up yet.”

And Al Lewis of Dow Jones Newswires has an essay entitled “A saga not near its end.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s en banc Tenth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Court Denies a Religion Its Monument in a Park”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “City Can Reject Religious Display; Supreme Court Backs Utah Officials.”

In The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that “Supreme Court rejects free-speech argument for ‘Seven Aphorisms’ display; Monuments and statutes in public parks speak for the government and are not equivalent to a speaker standing in a public park voicing his views, justices rule unanimously in a Utah case.”

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic has an article headlined “Justices: City can refuse monument; Utah park doesn’t have to take marker from small religious sect.”

In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “City Is Cleared to Reject a Religious Monument.”

In The Christian Science Monitor, Warren Richey reports that “Supreme Court rules Utah city can reject religious sect’s monument; Lawyers for the Summum religion had argued that its monument should be allowed in a public park where the Ten Commandments were already displayed.”

And law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “Supreme Court Unanimous in Speech, Antitrust Rulings.”

“Supreme Court questions use of ID theft law against illegal workers; The justices appear sympathetic to an undocumented immigrant who claimed that he didn’t know his fake identification had an actual person’s Social Security number”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

And today in The New York Times, Adam Liptak and Julia Preston have an article headlined “Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Identity-Theft Law in Immigration Cases.”

“N.J. high court divided on police car searches”: Today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer contains an article that begins, “A divided New Jersey Supreme Court yesterday defined parameters for when police can search a car without a warrant, but the dissenting justices said the ruling created a legal ‘quagmire’ that would hinder officers.”

And The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger reports today that “Warrantless car search rules stand; Decision forms task force to study telephonic, electronic procedures.”

You can access yesterday’s 4-3 ruling of the Supreme Court of New Jersey at this link.

“Ruling near on privacy issues in Seroquel case”: The Philadelphia Inquirer today contains an article that begins, “Does the world have the right to know about negative studies on AstraZeneca’s potent antipsychotic drug Seroquel? Or whether company representatives promoted the drug for unapproved uses? And what about details of sexual relationships between Wayne Macfadden, AstraZeneca’s former U.S. medical director for Seroquel, and two women who researched and wrote papers supporting the drug’s safety and efficacy? A federal judge in Orlando may answer those questions as soon as today in a case stemming from personal-injury claims by 15,000 people that Seroquel triggered weight gain, diabetes, and other health problems.”

“For 20 at Guantanamo, Court Victories Fall Short”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

“Justice Dept. Nominee Avoids Confrontation at Hearing”: Today in The New York Times, Neil A. Lewis has an article that begins, “Newly changed political realities were on vivid display on Wednesday as the Senate Judiciary Committee met to question Dawn Johnsen, President Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Legal Counsel.”

And The Indianapolis Star reports today that “IU staffer’s ideals questioned; Law professor gets bipartisan scrutiny at hearing to lead Justice Department unit.”

“Chief Sachem Matthew Thomas says tribes will fight court ruling”: The Providence (R.I.) Journal today contains an article that begins, “Narragansett Chief Sachem Matthew Thomas vowed yesterday that his tribe along with others nationwide will go to Congress, the White House and even the United Nations in seeking to undo a U.S. Supreme Court decision that blocks the federal government’s ability to hold lands for certain tribes.”