“Voting rights verdict: Whatever the Supreme Court decides about the Voting Rights Act, Section 5 of the law is outdated.” Abigail Thernstrom has this op-ed today in The Los Angeles Times.

“In ’03, Hints of Skepticism by Sotomayor on Expanded Wiretapping”: Charlie Savage has this article today in The New York Times.

And John Schwartz reports that “In Gun Case, Peers Support Sotomayor.”

“Report on Bush Policy May Come In ‘Weeks’; Probe Is Focused On Interrogation Program’s Approval”: Thursday’s edition of The Washington Post will contain an article that begins, “A Justice Department report focusing on possible ethics violations by Bush administration lawyers who approved waterboarding of terrorism suspects is still ‘a matter of weeks’ from release, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. told lawmakers yesterday.”

“Vets can’t get damages for computer breach”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Two Vietnam veterans are not entitled to damages from a 2007 Department of Veterans Affairs computer security breach in Birmingham, Ala., an appeals court panel ruled Wednesday.”

Circuit Judge Ed Carnes wrote today’s opinion on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The opinion begins, “Someone pulled off the trick of making an object disappear from a safe in a darkened office building over a cold and rainy weekend. Unfortunately, the magician never completed the trick by making it reappear. The missing object is hardly a stage prop. It is an external computer hard drive belonging to the Department of Veterans Affairs, which contained the unencrypted names, social security numbers, birth dates, and healthcare files of more than 198,000 living veterans.”

“Merrill Lynch execs in Enron case can be retried”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court says the retrial of three former Merrill Lynch & Co. executives connected to an Enron Corp. deal would not violate their constitutional protections against double jeopardy.” According to the article, the case involves “Enron’s sham sale of three power barges moored off the coast of Nigeria.”

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

“If Frank Ricci Loses, Blame Scalia: Conservative judges are the ones who have made discrimination suits hard to win.” Richard Thompson Ford has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

Second Circuit denies rehearing en banc of ruling that affirmed a federal death sentence imposed by a jury in Vermont, a State that lacks a death penalty: Today’s order denying rehearing en banc was accompanied by a concurring opinion and three separate dissenting opinions.

Circuit Judge and U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor — who seems to have suspended her activities as a Second Circuit judge pending the U.S. Senate‘s consideration of her nomination — has not placed on the public record in connection with today’s order how she voted.

Lastly, the dissenting opinion of Circuit Judge Rosemary S. Pooler reveals that she seems not to have received the memo announcing that the Second Circuit has finally abandoned “in banc” in favor of “en banc.”

“Justices Drop Case on Third Restatement”: The Legal Intelligencer has a news update (subscription required) that begins, “The state Supreme Court has declined to decide a case that seemed poised to be a vehicle for the justices to examine — and possibly reshape — Pennsylvania’s products liability law. The move, which came in a one-line order today, puts an end to the speculation that the court would use Bugosh v. I.U. North America to introduce concepts of negligence into the strict liability doctrine currently employed by Pennsylvania’s court system.”

You can access yesterday’s order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dismissing the appeal as improvidently granted at this link. Two judges dissented from the dismissal, and you can access their quite lengthy dissent from the dismissal at this link.

“7th Circuit Affirms District Court in Valero Tax Workpapers Case”: The “TaxProf Blog” has this post about a ruling that Circuit Judge Terence T. Evans issued today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

“Professional discipline for convicted former judge Joyce not yet determined”: This article appeared yesterday in The Erie (Pa.) Times-News.

Last week’s order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania can be accessed here.

“State Supreme Court issues rule for veils in courtroom”: The Detroit News has this update.

The Detroit Free Press has a news update headlined “State court: Judges can dictate witnesses’ attire.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Mich. court gives judges say in witnesses’ dress.”

Because I find the web site of the Supreme Court of Michigan especially difficult to navigate when it comes to locating newly issued decisions and opinions, I am not yet able to link to the new rule or the dissents from its promulgation. If a reader has located the correct links and can email them along, I’d be grateful.

Update: The proposed rule amendment adopted today can be viewed by clicking here.

Giving credit where credit is due: Credit for today’s late start at blogging belongs in part to my son, whose middle school graduation ceremony occurred this morning. At the ceremony, he was recognized as one of only twelve students in his 8th grade class of over 350 students who received an “A” grade in every course for every quarter of all three years of middle school.

“Senate Lawyers Toil Behind the Scenes in Preparation for Sotomayor Hearings”: law.com has this report.

Fourth Circuit denies rehearing en banc of decision affirming conviction for sending obscene textual email: You can access yesterday’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denying rehearing en banc, accompanied by a concurring and a dissenting opinion, at this link.

In news coverage of yesterday’s order, The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court won’t hear Richmond obscenity case.”

My earlier coverage of the divided three-judge panel’s ruling appears at this link.

“Supreme Court takes up property-rights case; The high court announced Monday it would hear a case involving a Florida beach restoration project”: Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

“Supreme Court rejects final appeal in ‘Cuban Five’ spy case; The U.S. Supreme Court denied a bid by five convicted Cuban men to hear their Miami spy case, closing the book on their appeal”: The Miami Herald contains this article today.

And Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Convicted ‘Cuban Five’ spies lose bid for new trial; The Supreme Court refused Monday to hear their appeal; Their lawyers had argued they couldn’t receive a fair trial in Miami.”

“High court strikes down Valdez tax on oil tankers; City had imposed it to make up for declining property taxes”: This article appears today in The Anchorage Daily News.

“Exxon must pay $480 million in interest over Valdez oil tanker spill; The federal appeals court ruling adds to the $507.5-million punitive damage award to victims of the devastating 1989 accident in Alaska; The firm is also ordered to pay $70 million in court costs”: Carol J. Williams has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

And law.com reports that “Exxon Plaintiffs Win on Interest, Appeal Costs.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Ninth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Western states want reins on federal power; An expanded federal role prompts declarations of state sovereignty; Montana goes further with a gun bill defying U.S. firearm restrictions; The goal: Keep Washington on its side of the fence.” This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Supreme Change: As Sonia Sotomayor Strives for the High Court, Her Childhood Neighborhood No Longer Houses Opportunity.” The Washington Post contains this article today.

“CIA Fights Full Disclosure of Detainee Report; White House Urged to Maintain Secrecy”: This article will appear Wednesday in The Washington Post.

“Bush-era lawyer could stand trial for penning ‘torture memos’; John Yoo can be held responsible for the alleged torture of detainee Jose Padilla, a judge ruled Friday”: Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

My earlier coverage of the ruling appears at this link.

“Tobacco Regulation Is Expected to Face a Free-Speech Challenge”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

“Conflicting Rulings on Guns Open Way to Supreme Court Review”: John Schwartz will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.

In news coverage of yesterday’s most noteworthy rulings of the Supreme Court of Georgia: The Ledger-Enquirer of Columbus, Georgia reports today that “Columbus wins Expedia lawsuit; Georgia Supreme Court rules online travel service should pay lodging taxes.” And Bill Rankin of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution today has an article headlined “Court: Online travel sites must pay city sales tax.” You can access yesterday’s ruling in Expedia, Inc. v. City of Columbus at this link.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution also contains a front page article by Rankin headlined “Court throws out ban on exposing children to gays.” You can access yesterday’s ruling in Mongerson v. Mongerson at this link.

Finally, The Augusta Chronicle reports that “Teacher sex case reversed over consent defense; State’s highest court rules age of consent an allowable defense.” And, in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Rankin has an article headlined “Court overturns teacher’s sex conviction; Student’s reaching age of consent should have been factor in trial.” You can access yesterday’s ruling in Chase v. State at this link.

“Sotomayor answers GOP as Senate braces for debate”: The Associated Press has this report. The nominee’s supplemental response from late yesterday can be accessed here, while the attachments to the supplemental response can be viewed online via this link.

At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” David Ingram has a post titled “Thurgood Marshall Also Called Prejudiced, Leahy Says.”

And online yesterday at National Journal, Amy Harder had an article headlined “Where Will Obama Turn For The Next Justice? The President Will Again Have To Consider A Complicated Political Calculus.”

John Roberts (no, not that John Roberts) interviews Anita Hill (yes, that Anita Hill): CNN.com has a report headlined “Anita Hill on Sotomayor: Tough, tenacious.”

“Sotto Voce:The Sonia Sotomayor you don’t know.” Law professor Jeffrey Rosen will have this essay in the July 01, 2009 issue of The New Republic.

A real sleeper of a Ninth Circuit en banc case: Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order granting en banc review in the case of United States v. Nevils, No. 06-50485.

Back on November 21, 2008, I had the following post about the three-judge panel’s divided ruling in the case:

Only in the Ninth Circuit? The Metropolitan News-Enterprise today contains an article headlined “Ninth Circuit Reverses Sleeping Felon’s Firearm Possession Conviction” that begins, “A divided panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday reversed a man’s felon-in-possession-of-firearms conviction because he was asleep when police officers found him on a couch in an abandoned apartment with one gun on his lap and another leaning against his leg.”

News from earlier this month reminded us that passed-out people are at risk of being turned into a surface for often crude graffiti. And now we learn, courtesy of yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, that sleeping felons may be used as a storage site for firearms.

Fortunately, at least two Ninth Circuit judges on the three-judge panel that produced yesterday’s ruling were unwilling to see sleeping felons be found guilty of additional federal criminal charges for having been exploited in that manner.

The introduction to Circuit Judge Jay S. Bybee‘s dissent from the three-judge panel’s ruling certainly makes for an interesting read.

Some recently filed appellate briefs: Two Fridays ago, I filed this Brief for Appellees in a case in which the Superior Court of Pennsylvania is being asked to decide whether skill or luck predominates in determining success in the game known as Texas hold ’em poker. In addition, Tom Goldstein, Chris Egleson, and the Akin Gump law firm filed this amicus brief for the Poker Players Alliance in support of appellees. Back in February 2009, The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported on the case in an article headlined “High court to play its Texas Hold’em hand.”

And last week, I signed an amicus brief written by Paul Wolfson, Rachel Brand, and Steve Lehotsky of WilmerHale on behalf of the Institute for Justice filed in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in a case presenting the question whether Pennsylvania’s Private Road Act is an unconstitutional taking of property for a private purpose in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution. You can access the Pa. Supreme Court’s order granting review at this link, and the ruling of the Pa. Commonwealth Court in the case can be accessed here.

“Sotomayor Defends Ties to Association”: Charlie Savage and David D. Kirkpatrick have this article today in The New York Times. In addition, Tom Goldstein of “SCOTUSblog” has an op-ed entitled “Her Justice Is Blind.”

Today in USA Today, John Fritze and Joan Biskupic report that “GOP’s Sessions ‘troubled’ over court nominees; Worries Obama picks are activist judges.”

The Washington Times reports that “Sotomayor goes on defense against Republican senators.”

And at Politico.com, Kenneth P. Vogel and Josh Gerstein report that “Sonia Sotomayor defends all-women’s group.”

“Study Shows Influence of SG in High Court Cases Granted Cert”: Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal has this report. You can access the study at this link.

“Justice Kennedy addresses Stanford graduates”: This article appears today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

“Kent starts his prison sentence; Federal judge reports in Massachusetts while still refusing to resign”: The Houston Chronicle has this news update.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court‘s reduction of punitive damages last year in the Exxon Valdez case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has today ruled on the related issues of interest and costs: You can access today’s ruling, by a partially divided three-judge panel, at this link.

Update: The Associated Press reports that “Exxon ordered to pay $507.5M for 1989 Alaska spill.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Exxon Valdez: $500 million interest due.”