“Assembly confirms Suttell as chief justice”: Last Friday’s edition of The Providence (R.I.) Journal contained an article that begins, “In 13 minutes flat, the state Senate on Thursday unanimously confirmed Supreme Court Justice Paul A. Suttell as Rhode Island’s 51st chief justice.”

“Newtown Square mom may take case to Supreme Court”: The Philadelphia Inquirer today contains an article that begins, “The decision that Donna Kay Busch and her attorneys must make by Aug. 31 could put the Newtown Square mother of three before the U.S. Supreme Court. She is considering whether to continue with a case that tackles issues of free speech and separation of church and state. If she goes forward, Busch says, the only cause she wants to strike a blow for is her son Wesley.”

“Supreme Court bidding goodbye to Souter”: The Associated Press has this report.

“A fire litmus test”: Today’s edition of The New Haven Register contains an article that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court is about to issue its decision on the case of 20 New Haven firefighters who claim the city discriminated against them when it threw out results of its 2003 tests for captain and firefighter positions.”

“GOP leader says time needed for Sotomayor records”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Harmonious week for the Roberts court; In two key cases, the normally fractured court comes together 8 to 1 to preserve the Voting Rights Act and oppose the strip search of a 13-year-old at school; But the harmony’s unlikely to last”: David G. Savage will have this article Monday in The Los Angeles Times.

“As Supreme Court Break Nears, Big Cases Remain”: This evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained this audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Dahlia Lithwick.

“Don’t Call It An Attack, Sotomayor Critics Say”: Keith Perine has this report online at CQ Politics.

“Supreme Court Says Child’s Rights Violated by Strip Search”: Adam Liptak had this article yesterday in The New York Times. The newspaper also contained an editorial entitled “An Unreasonable Search.”

Yesterday in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes had an article headlined “Student Strip Search Illegal; School Violated Teen Girl’s Rights, Supreme Court Rules.” The newspaper also contained an editorial entitled “Strip Searches and the Law: A smart compromise balances the rights of students with the needs of school administrators.”

Yesterday in The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage had an article headlined “Supreme Court declares strip-search of student unconstitutional; The 8-1 decision says Arizona school officials lacked justification for such an invasive search of a 13-year-old girl, who was suspected of hiding ibuprofen pills.” And today’s newspaper contains an editorial entitled “A common-sense ruling on strip searches: A Supreme Court decision lays down a bright line for school officials.”

In yesterday’s edition of USA Today, Joan Biskupic reported that “Strip search at school violated girl’s rights, high court rules; Souter says there must be ‘reasonable suspicion of danger.’” The newspaper also contained an editorial entitled “Strip-search case ends in victory for common sense: Justices’ ruling exposes folly of ham-handed ‘zero-tolerance’ policies,” while Francisco M. Negron had an op-ed entitled “Ruling missed opportunity: Justices didn’t clarify boundaries for schools on ‘personal searches.’”

Yesterday in The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reported that “Court Faults Strip-Search of Student.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor had an article headlined “Supreme Court: Strip-search of 13-year-old girl was illegal; The decision sets the standard for how far school officials can go in conducting searches of students’ property.”

law.com’s Tony Mauro reported that “Supreme Court rules student strip search unconstitutional.”

And yesterday in The Arizona Daily Star, Howard Fischer had an article headlined “US high court: Strip search unjustified.”

“Supreme Court Sides With Arizona in Language Case”: This article appeared yesterday in The New York Times.

Yesterday’s edition of The Arizona Republic contained an article headlined “Court rules in favor of state in 17-year English-learner battle; Justices: Court didn’t weigh recent educational efforts” and an editorial entitled “Let’s build on what works for students.”

And yesterday in The Arizona Daily Star, Howard Fischer had an article headlined “US justices void order to increase ELL money statewide.”

“Chief Justice: High court not setting school rules.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Don’t look to the Supreme Court to set school rules, only to clarify them when officials have abdicated that responsibility, Chief Justice John Roberts said Saturday.”

“Justices Rule Lab Analysts Must Testify on Results”: Adam Liptak had this article yesterday in The New York Times.

Yesterday in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reported that “Defendants Have Right To Confront Analysts of Forensics, Court Rules.”

Yesterday in The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reported that “Defendant can cross-examine forensic experts, Supreme Court rules; Technicians who prepare crime lab reports can be called forth as witnesses, justices say, reversing a conviction of a Massachusetts man accused of selling cocaine.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court says criminal defendants can challenge forensic experts; Minority justices warn that the guilty ‘will go free on the most technical grounds.’”

law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “Forensic ruling adds burden for prosecutors; High court says prosecutors must use witnesses to present evidence.”

Yesterday in The Boston Globe, Jonathan Saltzman and John Ellement reported that “Accused win right to query forensics; High court rules on confronting scientific evidence.”

And yesterday’s edition of The Boston Herald contained an article headlined “High court sides with con; Coakley loses fight to uphold man’s drug conviction” and an editorial entitled “A win for drug dealers.”

“2nd Delay Sought On Detainee Report; Justice Dept. Wants More Review”: Today’s edition of The Washington Post contains an article that begins, “Justice Department lawyers told a federal judge yesterday that the disclosure of a hotly anticipated 2004 report by the CIA inspector general on the Bush administration’s interrogation program for terrorism suspects will be delayed until shortly before the July 4 holiday weekend.”

“White House Weighs Order on Detention; Officials: Move Would Reassert Power To Hold Terror Suspects Indefinitely.” This article appears today in The Washington Post.

And The New York TImes reports today that “Shift Possible on Terror Suspects’ Detention.”

“Government Takes Side of Investors; Supports Right to Sue Over Excessive Fees”: Yesterday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal contained an article that begins, “The government has waded into a Supreme Court case that could determine the future of mutual-fund fees, arguing it believes a lower court went too far in restricting investors’ ability to sue funds over what they considered excessive fees.”

“Old Confirmation Wars Fueling Some Critics Now”: Neil A. Lewis had this article yesterday in The New York Times. Yesterday’s newspaper also contained an article headlined “Court Nominee Criticized as Relying on Foreign Law.”

Meanwhile, in commentary, the McClatchy-Tribune News Service has posted online an op-ed by Michael Gonzalez entitled “Sotomayor and racial identity politics.”

And earlier this week, columnist Linda P. Campbell of The Fort Worth Star-Telegram had an op-ed entitled “‘Activist’ judges come in both liberal and conservative robes.”

“Court: Homeless not subject to Megan’s Law.” Today’s edition of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania contains an article that begins, “A state Superior Court panel ruled Friday that convicted sexual offenders cannot be held subject to Megan’s Law registration requirements if they are homeless. The state appellate court found that William H. Wilgus should not have been prosecuted for violating the requirements to register his address with state police because he could not find a home after being released from prison in 2007.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania at this link.

In yesterday’s mail: I received a copy a new book written by Pulitzer Prize-winning author James MacGregor Burns, “Packing the Court: The Rise of Judicial Power and the Coming Crisis of the Supreme Court.”

“Business Capitalizes on Ruling in Political Case”: Today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal contains an article that begins, “A U.S. Supreme Court ruling focused on national security may end up as the most significant decision for business in the court’s about-to-conclude 2008-2009 term. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, released in May, will make it harder to bring a lawsuit without specific factual evidence, raising the threshold for moving a case into expensive litigation and possibly saving companies millions of dollars in legal fees.”

The Associated Press is reporting: Mark Sherman reports that “Supreme Court to decide final 3 cases on Monday.”

And in other news, “NFL asks high court to weigh in on antitrust case.”

“Judge Kent resigns amid impeachment proceedings”: This article appears today in The Houston Chronicle.

The Galveston County Daily News reports today that “From behind bars Kent resigns from bench.”

Saturday’s edition of The Washington Times will report that “Impeached judge Samuel B. Kent tenders his resignation; Move could avert Senate trial.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Judge Kent in Texas Resigns After House Impeachment.”

Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro has an article headlined “Can the Voting Rights Act Survive Another Challenge? Lawyers say release from federal supervision may get easier in wake of Supreme Court ruling.”

And in other news, “Scalia Discusses Conjunctions, Contractions and Pet Peeves at Texas Bar Event.”

“Sotomayor 2d Am. case now at Court”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Forgo vs. Forego”: Eugene Volokh has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” today in response to this post of mine from Tuesday.

“Chief Justice wrote of limits to Jackson acclaim”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Presidents named Reagan, Bush and Clinton applauded Michael Jackson in his lifetime. John Roberts, now the nation’s chief justice, said there were limits to adulation of a pop star.”

And at “The Caucus” blog of The New York Times, Charlie Savage has a post titled “From the White House Files: A Fight Over Michael Jackson.”

“Protesters in Pasadena decry past interrogation techniques”: Today’s edition of The Pasadena Star-News contains an article that begins, “About two dozen activists, some hooded and clad in orange jumpsuits, gathered to protest U.S. interrogation policies Thursday in front of the Ninth District Court of Appeals on Grand Avenue. The protesters singled out Judge Jay Bybee, a former attorney from the Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush Administration. Bybee now serves on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.”

“Congressional Research Service on Sotomayor: Hard to Categorize.” Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

By clicking here, you can access the Congressional Research Service report titled “Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Analysis of Selected Opinions.”

“Environmental Issues Lose in Supreme Court; Mining Decision is Fifth to Disappoint Activists This Term”: Lawrence Hurley has this article today in The Daily Journal of California.

“Hustler could appeal ruling on nude photos of Benoit’s wife”: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a news update that begins, “Hustler Magazine had no right to publish nude photographs of Chris Benoit’s deceased wife, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday. The family of the late Nancy Benoit filed a federal suit against Larry Flynt Publishing Group last year after Hustler published nude photographs of the professional wrestler’s wife.”

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: Hustler wrong to print dead woman’s photos.”

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

“Judge Kent resigns amid impeachment proceedings”: The Houston Chronicle has a news update that begins, “U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent resigned via an unusual no-frills letter that he hand-delivered in prison to two Senate officials who had come to serve a summons on him as part of ongoing impeachment proceedings in the Congress of the United States.”

The Galveston County Daily News has an update headlined “From behind bars Kent resigns from bench.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Impeached federal judge to resign.”

“Law need not bow to chemistry”: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post that begins, “Expressing a heavy dose of skepticism that crime lab reports are so reliable as to be beyond question, the Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for chemists and other scientists who prepare such reports to be summoned to the witness stand in criminal trials to defend their analyses.”

And Jonathan Saltzman of The Boston Globe has a news update headlined “Supreme Court rules in Boston drug case.”

“No bail for blogger accused of threatening judges”: The Associated Press has this report.

“We must decide whether a distributor of Internet security software is entitled to immunity under the safe harbor provision of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 from a suit claiming that its software interfered with the use of downloadable programs by customers of an online media company.” A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit answers “yes” in this opinion issued today.

En banc Seventh Circuit rejects federal death row inmate’s constitutional challenge to a policy that prohibits federal death row inmates from giving face-to-face interviews with the media and from talking with the media about other inmates: Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook wrote the en banc majority opinion. The en banc court’s vote in favor of this outcome was 5-3, with three other judges not participating in the decision.

The three dissenters from today’s en banc ruling were the same three judges who joined in a unanimous three-judge panel opinion issued in January 2008 that had reinstated (until vacated by the order granting rehearing en banc) the prisoner’s lawsuit challenging the policy. My earlier coverage of that ruling appears at this link.

You can access the en banc oral argument audio via this link (10.6MB mp3 audio file).

“Strip search of teen was unconstitutional, Supreme Court rules; The high court says the search of a 13-year-old girl at an Arizona middle school was unjustified; But justices reject the suit against school employees, saying the law had not been clear”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Supreme Court Rules School’s Strip Search of Girl Was Illegal.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers has an article headlined “Supreme Court: Strip search of 13-year-old unconstitutional.”

Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Teen strip-searched in school wins partial victory.”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Some expansion of student privacy.”

And at “The School Law Blog” of Education Week, Mark Walsh has a post titled “Strip-Search Decision Adds Clarity for Students and Schools.”