“Brown calls 1996 anti-affirmative action law unconstitutional; California attorney general issues the opinion in response to a request from the state Supreme Court; He appears to be seeking to appeal to liberals in an expected run for governor”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

My earlier coverage appears at this link.

“Hardin jail tries for detainees from Gitmo”: This article appears today in The Billings Gazette.

And The Associated Press reports that “Montana town wants its empty jail to be new Gitmo.”

“Let ’em sag, judge rules on Riviera Beach’s no-baggy-pants law”: Today’s edition of The Palm Beach Post contains an article that begins, “Riviera Beach’s ordinance banning saggy pants — overwhelmingly approved by voters — is unconstitutional, a judge ruled Wednesday. County Judge Laura Johnson held that no matter how ‘tacky or distasteful’ the fashion style, freedom of choice and liberties guaranteed under the 14th Amendment must prevail.”

“Sebelius vetoes abortion bill”: The Topeka Capital-Journal has a news update that begins, “Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ veto of three bills Thursday was highlighted by rejection of legislation that would have imposed new reporting mandates on late-term abortion doctors in Kansas.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Kansas gov vetoes bill on late-term abortions.”

“Justice Thomas recounts a bad fall”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “Pushing the Supreme Court Toward Transparency.”

And Dow Jones Newswires have a report headlined “No Consensus on Cameras In US Supreme Court – Thomas, Breyer.”

“Obama legal team wants to limit defendants’ rights”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant’s lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights. The administration’s action – and several others – have disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, after the Democrat’s call for change during the 2008 campaign.”

Available online from The New Republic: In the May 06, 2009 issue of that magazine, law professor Jeffrey Rosen will have an essay entitled “Race to the Top: Like it or not, the president is about to confront civil rights.”

And John McWhorter has an essay entitled “Moving Beyond Bias: When black people don’t perform as well on standardized tests, what should be done?”

“Any Indictment of Interrogation Policy Makers Would Face Several Hurdles”: Charlie Savage has this article today in The New York Times. The newspaper also contains a news analysis headlined “At Core of Detainee Fight: Did Methods Stop Attacks?“; an editorial entitled “In the Spirit of Openness“; and an op-ed by Ali Soufan entitled “My Tortured Decision.”

Today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times contains articles headlined “Prosecuting ‘torture memo’ authors called ‘a real stretch’; Legal experts say prosecutors would have to show that the Bush administration lawyers intentionally misstated the law against torture” and “Interrogation tactics got the OK early on; A Senate report says Bush administration officials signed off on CIA methods without the input of key agencies.”

The Washington Post contains articles headlined “Harsh Methods Approved as Early as Summer 2002; Holder Declassifies Timeline of Actions by Top Bush Administration Officials Regarding Interrogation” and “Congress Debates Fresh Investigation Of Interrogations; White House Tries to Quell Controversy.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that “Torture Cases Would Face Legal Hurdles.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Presidential Poison: His invitation to indict Bush officials will haunt Obama’s Presidency.” And U.S. Representative Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) has an op-ed entitled “Congress Knew About the Interrogations: Obama should release the memo on the attacks prevented.”

USA Today contains an article headlined “Report: Waterboarding approved earlier; Justice memos came after White House OK of tactics.”

McClatchy Newspapers have articles headlined “Document: Cheney, Rice signed off on interrogation techniques” and “Report: Abusive tactics used to seek Iraq-al Qaida link.”

The Christian Science Monitor has articles headlined “Obama’s torture memo two-step: The administration might want to move on from the issue, but there’s pressure from progressive groups and congressional Democrats for further investigation” and “Report says top officials set tone for detainee abuse; Abusive interrogation techniques in Abu Ghraib followed approval of their use in Guantanamo, says a report by Senate Armed Services Committee.”

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Pelosi backs anti-terror truth commission.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Obama’s Focus on Authors of Terror Memos Risks Political Furor.”

In The Boston Globe, Harvey Silverglate has an op-ed entitled “On torture outrage, let’s take a step back.”

Online at Slate, John Dickerson has an essay entitled “One More Time, Please: The president is having trouble straightening out his position on torture.”

And online at FindLaw, Michael C. Dorf has an essay entitled “Why President Obama Should Consider Pardoning those Who Designed, Authorized, and Carried Out the Bush Policy of Abusing Detainees.”

“9th Circuit OKs Ban on Gun Shows at County Fairgrounds”: law.com has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued on Monday. My earlier coverage appears at this link.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Guns, ‘chukas,’ and the states.” My earlier coverage of the Second Circuit ruling that is the subject of Lyle’s post can be accessed here.

“3rd Circuit Predicts Change for Pa. Products Liability Law”: Amaris Elliott-Engel of The Legal Intelligencer has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued on Tuesday.

“Jerry Brown calls Prop. 209 unconstitutional”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “The 1996 ballot measure that outlawed preferential treatment for women and minorities in government programs is unconstitutional because it prohibits all affirmative action and fosters the discrimination it was supposed to eliminate, Attorney General Jerry Brown told the state Supreme Court on Wednesday. Brown’s opinion, which the court requested in considering a lawsuit that two white-owned contractors brought against San Francisco, could reopen the legal debate on Proposition 209. A federal appeals court upheld the measure in 1997, but the state’s high court has never ruled on its validity.”

And The New York Times reports today that “Attorney General Challenges Anti-Bias Law in California.”

“Strip-searches on trial: The Supreme Court is weighing whether such searches violate students’ rights; The justices may want to adopt the advice of the Justice Department.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Justices Explore Role Race May Play in Employment”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Justices Weigh Anti-Bias Move’s Impact on Whites.” In addition, columnist Dana Milbank has a “Washington Sketch” essay entitled “The Supremes Sing the Oldies.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court weighs race in hiring and promotions; The justices hear an appeal by white firefighters from Connecticut, who say their exam results were thrown out when city officials realized it would mean no black colleagues would be promoted.”

Joan Biskupic of USA Today reports that “Court tackles racial bias in work promotions; White firefighters allege discrimination.”

In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “High Court Weighs Bias in Firefighters’ Test.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Reverse-discrimination case splits Supreme Court; Justice Kennedy appears to be the tiebreaking vote on whether New Haven, Conn., discriminated against white firefighters.”

The Hartford Courant reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Hears New Haven Firefighters’ Reverse Discrimination Arguments.”

law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “All Eyes on Kennedy in Firefighters Discrimination Case at High Court.”

And The Yale Daily News reports that “Race bias case divides Court.”

“Fumo seeks an order for a new trial; His lawyers said that the evidence against him was insufficient, and that the judge had erred”: Emilie Lounsberry has this article today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

And The Philadelphia Daily News reports today that “Lawyers ask acquittal or new trial for Fumo.”

“The Case for a Federalism Amendment: How the Tea Partiers can make Washington pay attention.” Law professor Randy E. Barnett has this op-ed today in The Wall Street Journal.

“Employers Watching Workers Online Spurs Privacy Debate”: Dionne Searcey has this article today in The Wall Street Journal.

“Law School begins search for new dean”: Today’s edition of The Yale Daily News contains an article that begins, “With a date now set for Yale Law School Dean Harold Hongju Koh’s confirmation hearing, the school is ready to begin the search for his successor.”

“Senior Justice Dept. nominee faces GOP roadblock in Senate”: McClatchy Newspapers have a report that begins, “President Barack Obama’s nomination of an Indiana University law professor to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel is meeting stiff resistance in the Senate, stalled for a month by Republicans who say she’s a polarizing figure because she aggressively criticized the Bush administration’s legal rationale on torturing terrorism suspects and radical in her views on abortion rights.”

“Court sits out stimulus fight; Chapin student had sued to get decision on control of $700 million”: The State newspaper of Columbia, South Carolina today contains an article that begins, “South Carolina’s highest court has decided not to hear a case asking the court to decide who — Gov. Mark Sanford or the Legislature — controls a disputed $700 million in federal stimulus money. But the attorneys who filed the case said it leaves open the possibility the court could decide the issue later.”

You can access yesterday’s order of the Supreme Court of South Carolina at this link.

“Blogger seeks to protect sources; N.J. case could define for free speech on web”: This article appears today in The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger.

“Fla. judge’s career finished over ties to stripper”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Judge says integrity of Justice Department at issue in Al-Arian case”: This article appears today in The St. Petersburg Times.

“Breyer, Thomas on Hill Thursday to discuss budget”: The Associated Press has this report.