“Initial Thoughts on Bartlett v. Strickland: Narrowing the Voting Rights Act to Save It?” Law professor Rick Hasen has this post at his “Election Law Blog.”

In additional coverage of today’s U.S. Supreme Court rulings and Order List: The Associated Press has reports headlined “Court to look at mutual fund fees“; “Court rules for consumer in dispute with Discover“; and “Court turns down appeal from Infospace founder.”

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court rejects expanded voting rights protections“; “U.S. top court to decide case on mutual fund fees“; and “Supreme Court says defendant can’t blame lawyer for delays.”

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Limits Federal Voting Rights Act” and “New York, Shooting Victims Rebuffed by Court on Gunmaker Suits.”

“Don’t Rely on Bush’s Signing Statements, Obama Orders”: Charlie Savage of The New York Times has a news update that begins, “Calling into question the legitimacy of all the signing statements that former President George W. Bush used to challenge new laws, President Obama on Monday ordered executive officials to consult with Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. before relying on any of them to bypass a statute.”

Over the dissent of eight judges, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denies rehearing en banc of decision allowing San Francisco to require employers to pay part of the cost of providing health care to uninsured residents: You can access today’s order denying rehearing en banc, and opinions concurring in and dissenting from that order, at this link.

A unanimous three-judge Ninth Circuit panel issued its ruling in the case on September 30, 2008. My earlier coverage of that ruling appears at this link.

In celebration of New York City’s subway system: At the outset of this ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.

Access today’s U.S. Supreme Court opinions in argued cases: The Court today issued four decisions in argued cases.

1. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Kansas v. Colorado, No. 105, Orig. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. also filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice David H. Souter joined. You can access the decision at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

2. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court in Vaden v. Discover Bank, No. 07-773. Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Souter, and Clarence Thomas joined in the Court’s ruling. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer, and Alito joined. You can access the decision at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

3. Justice Ginsburg also delivered the opinion of the Court in Vermont v. Brillon, No. 08-88. The Chief Justice and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Alito joined in the Court’s ruling. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Stevens joined. You can access the decision at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

4. And Justice Kennedy announced the judgment of the Court in Bartlett v. Strickland, No. 07-689, and delivered an opinion in which the Chief Justice and Justice Alito joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Scalia joined. Justice Souter filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined. In addition, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer also each filed a dissenting opinion. You can access the decision at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court rules against minority districts.”

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court refuses to expand minority voting rights“; “Court rules for prosecutors in speedy trial case“; and “Court sides with Colorado in fee dispute.”

“Court to rule on investment adviser fees”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

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

And in early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court turns down NYC case against gun industry“; “Court refuses to get involved in tobacco fight“; “Court refuses to hear Texas A&M bonfire case“; and “Court refuses to reconsider state ballot rules.”

Mary J. Blige, on appeal: Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has issued a decision on whether Blige’s song “Family Affair” infringes the copyright of aspiring rap artist Tim Acker’s song “”Party Ain’t Crunk.”

“Bringing Newly Issued Rulings to an Appellate Court’s Attention”: That’s the title of this month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column, which appears today in The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.

“Court vacates Shell Alaska drilling decision; Confusion: Both sides left wondering whether oil company can drill or not.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court has vacated an opinion issued last year that halted Shell Oil Co. drilling plans for the Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s northern coast, leaving both sides in the case wondering what the action means.”

You can view Friday’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“Under Obama, no mass firings of U.S. attorneys; Well-regarded Rosenstein could stay in Maryland”: This article appears today in The Baltimore Sun.

“A change of venue for Jersey justices: Rutgers Law School.” The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger today contains an article that begins, “Anchored for decades in their chambers in Trenton, New Jersey’s Supreme Court justices will take their show on the road today. The seven justices’ journey to Camden, where they will hear cases at Rutgers-Camden Law School, will set a precedent for the state’s highest court.”

This Virginia high school’s “Mock High Court” included a Scalia among the Justices: Details appear in this article published today in The Washington Post.

“Wash. prepares for first execution since 2001”: The Associated Press has this report from Walla Walla.

“Who’s Filibustering Now? President Obama should not let the Republicans interfere with how he chooses federal court judges.” This editorial appears today in The New York Times.

“The Supreme Court and the Tyranny of Lawyers: Last week’s drug ruling will cost lives.” Columnist L. Gordon Crovitz has this op-ed today in The Wall Street Journal.

Today’s edition of The Philadelphia Daily News contains an editorial entitled “FDA needs poison pill.”

In The Austin American-Statesman, law professor Thomas O. McGarity has an op-ed entitled “Wyeth v. Levine is a rare win for consumers.”

And in The Washington Times, Jim Copland and Paul Howard have an op-ed entitled “A ‘cure’ worse than gangrene; Supreme Court’s gift to trial lawyers hurts us all.”

“California Marijuana Dispensaries Cheer U.S. Shift on Raids”: This article appears today in The Wall Street Journal.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports today that “Backers of medical marijuana hopeful in N.J.”

And The Los Angeles Times contains an editorial entitled “A plan for pot: The federal switch on raiding medical marijuana dispensaries is a good first step, but a more comprehensive policy is needed.”

In the current issue of The Harvard Law Record: The publication contains articles headlined “D.C. Circuit Judge defends Bork legacy“;

“Linda Greenhouse knows what judges know; Former NY Times reporter addresses Women’s Law Conference“; and

“JAG describes Mohammed Jawad’s Gitmo saga.”

“Judicial Recusals & Free Speech Cases”: Yesterday’s broadcast of C-SPAN’s “America & the Courts” program is described on that network’s web site as follows:

Attorneys who argued in the case Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company spoke with reporters on the oral arguments given before the Supreme Court. Also, oral arguments in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case, Nurre v. Whitehead. The case involves First Amendment right to free speech for students.

You can view the broadcast online, on-demand by clicking here.

“Ky. Religious Funding Suit Heads To Appeals Court”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Attorneys in a case involving a Kentucky Baptist children’s program will appear before a federal appeals court this week to argue about the role of government funding for faith-based institutions.”

The case will be argued on Wednesday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

“Web Directory Of Attorneys Upsets D.C. Bar”: This article will appear Monday in The Washington Post.

“Terror-War Fallout Lingers Over Bush Lawyers”: Charlie Savage and Scott Shane will have this article Monday in The New York Times.

“Are crosses religious symbols? Court to hear case.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A Denver federal appellate court will hear arguments Monday on the religiousness of 12-foot-high crosses used to honor deceased Utah troopers along state highways. A federal judge in Salt Lake City in 2007 ruled that the crosses are not an illegal public endorsement of religion and are used to communicate a secular message — that a patrolman died or was mortally wounded at a particular location.”

The case will be argued tomorrow before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

You can access the trial court’s ruling at this link.

“State high court needs conflict of interest rules; Causes for stepping aside should be clearly defined”: Friday’s edition of The Detroit News contained an editorial that begins, “The Michigan Supreme Court Thursday began the process of creating formal rules for when justices should step aside from hearing cases. The court needs to clearly define the kinds of conflicts that should cause jurists to remove themselves.”

“In balancing the budget, first things first”: Today in The St. Paul Pioneer Press, Chief Justice Eric J. Magnuson of the Supreme Court of Minnesota has an op-ed that begins, “As the governor and legislative leaders struggle to address the state’s projected deficit, they will have to set priorities and make difficult choices. One choice they should not make is to further diminish an already underfunded justice system with additional budget cuts.”

“Minn. Senate race leaves voters tired of law drama”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Court nomination fights — enough! It’s time to take the politics out of seating judges on federal courts.” Dahlia Lithwick has this op-ed today in The Los Angeles Times.

Editorials published today in The Los Angeles Times: The newspaper contains editorials entitled “Supreme Court is religiously inconsistent: The court ruled correctly in the Summum case, but the controversy could have been avoided if the court had made its stand clear on religious displays”

and

“Giving DNA the OK: The Supreme Court must rule that access to DNA information is a constitutional right; Otherwise, states would be free to withhold evidence that could free a wrongly convicted person.”

“Existing gay marriages now on a great divide; With the California Supreme Court likely to uphold Proposition 8 but still recognize those already married, the couples are feeling both elated and isolated”: Maura Dolan and Jessica Garrison have this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

The newspaper also contains an op-ed by Robin Rauzi entitled “I’ll be a marriage outlaw: It’s OK if the state Supreme Court wants to uphold Prop. 8 — I’ll still be married.”

“TARP Heels: Can conservatives overturn the bailout in court?” Law professor Jeffrey Rosen will have this article in the March 18, 2009 of The New Republic.

“A Reckoning at Bagram: Mr. Obama must give those held at the Afghan air base a way to challenge their detentions.” Today’s edition of The Washington Post contains this editorial.

“Federal Courts in Va., N.Y. May Take Some Guantanamo Cases”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court liberal? In a decision last week against the drug company Wyeth, it was the court’s most conservative justice who dealt a blow to Bush administration legal policy.” David G. Savage will have this article Sunday in The Los Angeles Times.

Sunday in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Court Defies Pro-Business Label; Decisions Reveal More Nuanced Portrait.”

Today’s edition of The St. Petersburg Times contains an editorial entitled “The public wins one.”

And yesterday’s edition of The Burlington (Vt.) Free Press contained an editorial entitled “Drug-case ruling improves protection.”

Judge DuBose sentences former Judge DuBose to prison: The Mobile Press-Register reports today that “DuBose gets 18 months for firearms violations.”

The jurist who imposed the sentence is U.S. District Judge Kristi DuBose of the Southern District of Alabama. If I have my facts right, she is the first person from my law school class at Emory to be confirmed to the federal bench.

“Mixed Opinions of a Judge Accused of Misconduct”: The New York Times on Sunday will contain an article that begins, “If Sharon Keller, the presiding judge of Texas’ highest criminal court, has ever doubted her judgment, she has not shown it. In 1998, Judge Keller wrote the opinion rejecting a new trial for Roy Criner, a mentally retarded man convicted of rape and murder, even though DNA tests after his trial showed that it was not his semen in the victim.”