“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.

“Another loss for parents of Trolley Square victim; A court denies their appeal relating to a gun dealer”: Pamela Manson of The Salt Lake Tribune has a news update that begins, “An appeals court on Wednesday declined once more to declare that Vanessa Quinn, who was killed in the Trolley Square massacre, was the victim of the illegal sale of a handgun to shooter Sulejman Talovic.”

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

“Despite deadline, Carcieri has not yet selected the next Supreme Court chief justice”: This article appears today in The Providence (R.I.) Journal.

“Supreme Court looks at race factor in hiring and promotions; Justices hear an appeal by white firefighters from Connecticut, who say their promotional exam results were thrown out when officials realized it would mean no black colleagues would be promoted”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

And this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Justices Weigh Bias In Promotions Test” (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg.

“Abolish the White House Counsel: And the Office of Legal Counsel, too, while we’re at it.” Law professor Bruce Ackerman has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Court divided on reverse discrimination claims”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

Update: You can access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Ricci v. DeStefano, No. 07-1428, by clicking here.

Ninth Circuit Judge Jay S. Bybee decides appeal with a tortuous procedural history: According to his opinion for a unanimous three-judge panel, “The events at issue span twenty years, resulted in congressional hearings, and involve litigation in three circuits. We are not sure if the appropriate literary metaphor belongs to Tolstoy or to Kafka, but we are going to set forth the history of this case in some detail.”

Today’s ruling hands the federal government at least a very small victory in a case where a private claimant had secured an arbitration award against the federal government totaling more than $93 million.

“7th Circuit Nominee To Go Before Senate Judiciary Again”: Keith Perine had this post yesterday afternoon at the “Legal Beat” blog of CQ Politics.

And yesterday afternoon at National Review Online’s “Bench Memos” blog, Ed Whelan had a post titled “The Confirmation Rush Continues.”

Khat’s paw: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued this ruling today.

Access today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in an argued case: The Supreme Court of the United States today issued its ruling in Nken v. Holder, No. 08-681. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer joined. Justice Kennedy also issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Scalia joined. And Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined. You can access the ruling at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court makes it easier to fight deportation.”

“Court: State must pay Jehovah’s Witness benefits.” The Casper (Wyo.) Star-Tribune today contains an article that begins, “The widow of a man who died after he refused a blood transfusion for religious reasons is entitled to workers compensation death benefits, the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Court orders benefits in Jehovah’s Witness case.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Wyoming at this link.

“Lawyer tells court CIA memos undermine case”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “Foreign prisoners who accused a Bay Area company of arranging torture flights for the CIA told a federal appeals court Tuesday that the Obama administration’s disclosure of memos on brutal CIA interrogations undermined its claim that their lawsuit would endanger national secrets.”

“Supreme Court hears arguments in school strip-search case; The justices’ questions suggest they’re reluctant to limit administrators’ ability to look for drugs, even in the case of ibuprofen”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

And in today’s edition of USA Today, Joan Biskupic and Greg Toppo report that “Girl’s strip search argued in court; Justice Roberts questions limits on schools.”

“Different approaches for two men at center of ‘torture memo’ controversy; While John Yoo fiercely defends his legal justification for harsh interrogation tactics before a skeptical crowd in Orange County, federal appeals court Judge Jay Bybee maintains a low profile”: Carol J. Williams has this article today in The Los Angeles Times. The newspaper also contains articles headlined “Military helped with CIA interrogation tactics, report says; A senator says the report ‘connects the dots’ to show how techniques familiar to military experts found their way into controversial memos by the Justice Department” and “Obama open to inquiry on CIA tactics; The president reaffirms that agents won’t be prosecuted, but says those who shaped the legal arguments might.”

Today’s edition of The New York Times contains articles headlined “In Adopting Harsh Tactics, No Inquiry Into Their Past Use“; “Report Gives New Detail on Approval of Brutal Techniques“; “Banned Techniques Yielded ‘High Value Information,’ Memo Says“; and “Obama Won’t Bar Inquiry, or Penalty, on Interrogations.”

The Washington Post contains articles headlined “Obama Open to Prosecuting Bush Officials Over Abuse; President Talks of Independent Panel on Interrogation Policy“; “Harsh Tactics Readied Before Their Approval; Senate Report Describes Secret Memos“; and “Intelligence Chief Says Methods Hurt U.S.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Interrogation Views Spread With Help of Bush Aides.” The newspaper also contains an article headlined “Probes of Bush Officials Loom; Obama Opens Door to Prosecuting Interrogation Architects; Republicans Rip Comments” and an editorial entitled “Obama and the CIA: A President can’t placate the left and keep America safe.”

USA Today reports that “Obama open to probe into interrogations; Says legal action up to AG Holder.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Memos confirm torture, but what was the yield? Actions undercut U.S. standing; panel could point way forward” and an op-ed by Marc A. Thiessen entitled “Interrogation methods work: Release of memos aids al-Qaeda, confirms program’s effectiveness.”

Gail Russell Chaddock of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Obama says CIA memos could yet lead to charges; Those who wrote the memos are not in the clear, he says, but any investigation must be above partisanship.”

In The Boston Globe, columnist Jeff Jacoby has an op-ed entitled “A tortured debate over the ‘torture memos.’”

The Associated Press reports that “3 lawyers face scrutiny for torture advice.”

And from National Public Radio, today’s broadcast of “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “Democrats Push For Memo Writers’ Prosecution.” Yesterday evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained audio segments entitled “Interrogation Policymakers Might Still Face Charges” and “Psychologists Dispute Claim in Interrogation Memos.” And yesterday’s broadcast of “Morning Edition” contained audio segments entitled “Obama Defends Releasing Interrogation Memos” and “Conservatives Upset By Release Of Memos.”

“Supreme Court Cuts Back Officers’ Searches of Vehicles”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Supreme Court Limits Warrantless Car Searches.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court scales back police right to search cars; The ruling limits searches to cases when there may be a weapon within the suspect’s reach or evidence related to the arrest; The decision sets aside broader powers granted by the court in 1981.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Supreme Court puts brakes on car searches; The justices not only clarified the rules on police searches of vehicles, they showed that the desire to hold officers accountable to the Constitution crosses ideological lines.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “High Court Curbs Power of Police to Search Cars.”

And in The Arizona Daily Star, Howard Fischer reports that “US justices limit vehicle searches.”