In commentary available online from FindLaw: Anthony J. Sebok has an essay entitled “The Recent, Eight-Million-Dollar Verdict Against Philip Morris and in Favor of A Smoker’s Family: Why It Will Likely Be Reversed as Unconstitutional.”

And Michael C. Dorf has an essay entitled “Can Anyone Protect Clients From Bad Lawyering? Some Lessons of a Recent Appeals Court Case.”

“Congressman wants Kent impeached; He also wants to deny retirement for judge who pleaded guilty in sex-crimes case”: Today in The Houston Chronicle, Mary Flood has an article that begins, “A ranking congressional judiciary committee Republican said Tuesday he will call for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent, who pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice this week. U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said Tuesday that once Kent has been sentenced he will introduce a resolution to impeach the 59-year-old jurist who is seeking to retire with full pay.” In addition, columnist Rick Casey has an op-ed entitled “The Judge Sam soap opera continues.”

Pamela A. MacLean of The National Law Journal reports that “Kent’s abrupt retirement shrouded in mystery.”

And at the web site of the Houston Press, Richard Connelly has a blog post titled “What We Missed Because Of Judge Kent’s Plea Deal.”

“Justices Hear Cases on Paying for Superfund Cleanups”: Adam Liptak will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.

And online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a Supreme Court dispatch headlined “Superfun!!! Toxic sludge oozes at the Supreme Court.”

You can access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Burlington N. & S.F.R. Co. v. United States at this link.

“Citing Cost, States Consider Halting Death Penalty”: This article will appear Wednesday in The New York Times.

“Judge questions law giving telecoms immunity”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “A federal judge in San Francisco is raising questions about the constitutionality of a law designed to dismiss suits against telecommunications companies accused of cooperating with government wiretapping. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has asked President Obama’s Justice Department to present its views by Wednesday on whether the law gives the attorney general too much power to decide whether a company is immune from lawsuits.”

“Appeals court: Classified info OK to use at trial.” The AP has this report about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued today.

And at his blog, Josh Gerstein has a post titled “Big Defense Win in Aipac Case, But Beware the Footnote.”

“Turmoil on legal team for Canadian at Gitmo”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Court orders EPA to reconsider soot threshold”: The Associated Press has this report about a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

“Specter Tries to Explore Kagan’s Constitutional Views”: David Ingram has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times” about these answers that the nominee recently provided to the Senator’s written questions.

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court rulings in argued cases: The Supreme Court of the United States today issued three rulings in argued cases.

1. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. issued the opinion of the Court in Ysursa v. Pocatello Ed. Assn., No. 07-869. You can access the decision at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link. In news coverage, Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: State can stop union political deductions.”

2. Justice Clarence Thomas issued the opinion of the Court in Carcieri v. Salazar, No. 07-526. You can access the decision at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link. In news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court rules for state in American Indian land case.” And The Providence (R.I.) Journal has a news update headlined “Court rules for RI in Narragansett tribal case.” I guess that Theodore B. Olson wasn’t such a bad choice to argue for Rhode Island after all.

3. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued the opinion of the Court in United States v. Hayes, No. 07-608. You can access the decision at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link. Mark Sherman of the Associated Press reports that “Court upholds conviction in guns case.” David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “High court keeps guns away from domestic abusers; Justices uphold broader interpretation of law aimed at people convicted of felony and misdemeanor violence.” At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “Second Amendment Absent in Supreme Court Gun Ruling.”

Finally, at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Some limits on political donations upheld” reporting on all three rulings.

“High court to weigh dispute over Mojave cross”: Tony Mauro has this news analysis online at the First Amendment Center.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Intriguing issues about religion.”

In yesterday’s mail: “In the Name of Justice,” edited by Timothy Lynch and published by the Cato Institute. The contributors include several notable appellate judges.

And The Green Bag‘s “2009 Almanac and Reader,” featuring, among other things, the writings of several notable appellate judges.

“Judge Kent accepts plea deal, retires; Trial ‘would have been long, embarrassing and difficult for all involved,’ defense attorney says”: The Houston Chronicle contains this article today. The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Kent’s guilty plea: Galveston federal judge betrayed a sacred trust with his despicable conduct.” And columnist Lisa Falkenberg has an op-ed entitled “Is Kent getting off easy?”

The New York Times reports today that “Plea Deal Ends Sexual Abuse Case Against Federal Judge in Texas.”

And The Galveston County Daily News reports today that “Women’s group, law experts weigh in on Kent plea.”

“Solicitor General asked to weigh in on 9/11 suit; The request from the U.S. Supreme Court may indicate a close hearing”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Programming note: This morning, I’ll be arguing on appeal for the plaintiff/appellant in a case in which The Legal Intelligencer of Philadelphia previously reported that “JNOV Wipes Out Verdict of $1.5 Million in Hormone Replacement Case.”

The appeal is being heard by a three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, sitting in Philadelphia.

My client’s Brief for Appellant and Reply Brief for Appellant/Response Brief for Cross-Appellee are both available online.

Additional posts will appear here later today.

Update: The oral argument seemed to go quite well.

Federal district judges sitting by designation with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: In response to this post of mine from last night, Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook emails:

District judges have indeed begun to sit with the Seventh Circuit, after a gap of more than 15 years.

This is not because the circuit needs assistance; our caseload has not had a net increase over the past five years. Anyway, asking active district judges to sit with a court of appeals does not increase the judicial system’s capacity, since time devoted to appeals is lost to the district court.

I have invited the more recent appointees to the district court (those who have served five years or less) to sit with the court of appeals, so that they may get better acquainted with how the appellate process works in the Seventh Circuit. I also have urged judges of the court of appeals to sit occasionally on the district court. The judicial system as a whole is stronger when its members have experience with the process from beginning to end. Judicial knowledge and insight yield benefits for litigants. All of the circuit’s district judges with five years or less or service have accepted and will sit with the Seventh Circuit for two days each before the end of May. Judge Kendall, who sat on January 20 and 22, is the first.

There are collateral benefits when appellate judges and district judges get to know one another as colleagues, instead of just people who meet occasionally at conferences and receptions–or who engage in a back-and-forth in opinions in an attempt explain why the other made a legal error. Working cooperatively helps.

The program is beginning with the more recent appointments. If it proves successful, invitations will be extended to district judges who have served longer. But I do not plan to invite any judge (district or appellate) from outside the circuit; those invitations would not have the benefits I’ve mentioned.

I thank Chief Judge Easterbrook for offering this explanation.

“On Return, Ginsburg Is Quick to Question”: Adam Liptak will have this article Tuesday in The New York Times.

“Liberals Use Supreme Court Gun Case to Bolster Other Rights”: law.com’s Tony Mauro has this report.

Isn’t that “special”? What differentiates a “special concurrence” from an ordinary, run-of-the-mill concurrence? A ruling that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued today raises that question, as two of the three judges on the panel “specially concurred” in the lead opinion of the third judge.

The author of the first special concurrence states that he joins in the lead opinion in full, making the concurrence perhaps somewhat less special than if it had sought to accomplish something utterly bizarre. And the second of the two special concurrences offers no reasoning whatsoever, suggesting that it is little more than an ordinary (and therefore not particularly special) concurrence in the judgment.

In news coverage of the substance of the ruling, The Associated Press reports that “Amnesty International wins round in speech lawsuit.”

Seventh Circuit again begins allowing U.S. District Judges to sit by designation on that federal appellate court’s three-judge panels: See, for example, this ruling issued today.

If any reliable explanation for this change should reach me, I’ll more than gladly pass it along to the readers of this blog.

“U.S. District Court Judge Pleads Guilty to Obstruction of Justice”: The U.S. Department of Justice issued this news release today.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times is reporting: In Tuesday’s newspaper, he will have articles headlined “Supreme Court to hear Mojave cross case
Justices will decide whether the monument can stand in a national park to honor fallen soldiers; It will be the Roberts court’s first chance to rule on separation of church and state”

and

“Supreme Court won’t hear appeal in patronage fraud case; Aides to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley were convicted of ‘honest services fraud’ in awarding city jobs based on political connections; Justice Antonin Scalia dissents, calling the law too vague.”

“Marriage ruling gave gay people legal protection”: Greg Moran has this article today in The San Diego Union-Tribune.

“‘Secret’ deadly for Montana town saturated in asbestos, prosecutors say; Trial begins in the case of W.R. Grace company, accused of knowingly exposing Libby, Mont., residents to asbestos; About 1,200 have sickened or died; The defense says there was no conspiracy”: The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

“Justice Ginsburg Returns to Work; Less Than 3 Weeks After Cancer Surgery, She Is an Active Participant on the Bench”: Robert Barnes will have this article Tuesday in The Washington Post.

And The Louisville Courier-Journal has a news update headlined “Bunning apologizes for Ginsburg comments.”

Programming note: I have a work-related meeting out of the office this afternoon. As a result, additional posts will appear here this evening.

“Judge Kent accepts plea deal and retires from bench; Trial ‘would have been long, embarrassing and difficult for all involved,’ defense attorney says”: Mary Flood of The Houston Chronicle has this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Federal judge pleads guilty before start of trial.”

“Court grants religious symbol case, five others”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

You can access today’s Order List of the Supreme Court of the United States at this link.

In addition to granting review in six cases, the Court also called for the views of the Solicitor General in two cases.

And Justice Antonin Scalia issued this dissent from the denial of certiorari in a case seeking to challenge the constitutionality of, and clarify the meaning of, “honest services” fraud under the federal mail and wire fraud statutes.

In early news coverage from The Associated Press, “Ginsburg in court after surgery“; “Court will rule in dispute over 8-foot cross“; “Court to rule on death sentence for neo-Nazi“; “Court rejects appeal from convicted Daley aides“; “Court rules against al-Qaida member, a US citizen“; “Court turns down utilities over mercury emissions“; “Court won’t revisit Holocaust insurance settlement“; “Court turns down FTC in Rambus case“; and “Court won’t revive Kentucky teen’s lawsuit.”

“W.R. Grace asbestos trial to open today; Md. firm, former managers charged in Mont. pollution and cover-up”: This article appears today in The Baltimore Sun.

As I noted in this post from last week, The Missoulian is providing extensive local coverage of the trial.

“Supreme Court to tackle judicial conflict of interest; At issue in a West Virginia case is whether big spending on a judge’s election can create an unconstitutional ‘appearance of bias'”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Justice Roberts’s Portfolio: Why stock investments and Supreme Court service don’t mix.” The Washington Post contains this editorial today.

“A ‘Ticking Time Bomb’ Goes Off: When Abdallah Al-Ajmi Returned to Kuwait After Nearly Four Years at Guantanamo, His Family Tried to Get Him to Move On; But He Didn’t Want to Let Go.” This front page article appears today in The Washington Post.

The Kansas City Star reports today that “Future of Gitmo detainees raises many questions.”

And The Los Angeles Times contains an editorial entitled “Free the Uighurs: It’s time to untie the legal knot keeping 17 Chinese Muslim dissidents at Guantanamo.”

“Justice for American Indians”: The New York Times today contains an editorial that begins, “The federal government has a long history of cheating American Indians, and not all of this dirty dealing is in the distant past. On Monday, the Supreme Court hears arguments in a suit by the Navajo, who lost millions of dollars’ worth of coal royalties because the government helped a coal company underpay for their coal. A lower court ruled for the Navajo Nation. The Supreme Court should affirm that well-reasoned decision.”

In the March 2, 2009 issue of The New Yorker: Jeffrey Toobin has a “Comment” headlined “Voter, Beware: The Supreme Court takes on a civil-rights landmark.”

And Lauren Collins has a “Talk of the Town” essay headlined “Gitmo Get-Together: Defense lawyers celebrate the order to close the Guantanamo Bay prison.”

“Jury selection in Kent trial starts today; Federal judge’s sex crimes case being watched nationwide”: Mary Flood has this front page article today in The Houston Chronicle.

And today in The Wall Street Journal, Nathan Koppel reports that “Criminal Trial of U.S. Judge Set to Open.”