“Obama Awards Medal of Freedom to O’Connor”: Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Bias suit by black US Capitol officers revived”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court on Friday revived a discrimination lawsuit brought by more than 200 black police officers who claim they were mistreated by white supervisors with the U.S. Capitol Police.”

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

“Appeals court orders resentencing for Nacchio”: The Denver Post has this news update.

Reuters has a report headlined “Qwest ex-CEO prison term incorrect – appeals court.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Court orders shorter sentence for ex-Qwest CEO.”

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

“Court Creates Waves in Criminal System; Right to Cross-Examine Expert Witnesses Means Big Changes In Presenting Lab Evidence”: Lawrence Hurley had this article yesterday in The Daily Journal of California.

“6 GOP Senators To Vote In Favor Of Sotomayor”: This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

And earlier this week, Wednesday’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Obama’s Judicial Nominees Stalled In Senate” (RealPlayer required).

“Porn prosecution fuels debate”: Today at Politico.com, Josh Gerstein has an article that begins, “President Barack Obama’s Justice Department has quietly agreed to move a pornography prosecution out of socially conservative Montana to more urbane New Jersey — fueling perceptions by some attorneys that the new administration is stepping back from the aggressive approach the Bush administration took to prosecuting obscenity.”

“Judges won’t hear appeal on Commandments sign; Haskell County lost lawsuit over monument on courthouse lawn”: This article appears today in The Oklahoman.

My earlier post on yesterday’s Tenth Circuit order, accompanied by two dissenting opinions, denying rehearing en banc by an evenly divided vote can be accessed here.

“Past the Judicial Wars”: Columnist David S. Broder has this op-ed today in The Washington Post.

“Selective Service Is Sued by Quaker; Draft Form Has No Way to Indicate Status as Conscientious Objector”: The Washington Post contains this article today.

“Detention Challenges Are Far Off for Many; Guantanamo Cases Make Little Progress”: This article will appear Friday in The Washington Post.

Available online from law.com: Shannon P. Duffy of The Legal Intelligencer reports that “3rd Circuit Upholds Bar to Litigation Over Litigation; Opinion backs lawyers’ ‘absolute privilege’ in communication in course of lawsuit.” You can access today’s non-precedential ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at this link.

In other news, an article reports that “Appeals Court Upholds Lopsided Award Against Ford Motor Co.; Panel found no reason to reverse based on a mismatch between compensatory and punitive damages.” You can access yesterday’s non-precedential ruling of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, at this link.

And in commentary, Eric R. Haren has an essay entitled “The Real Battle for the Federal Judiciary.”

Evenly divided Tenth Circuit denies rehearing en banc of three-judge panel ruling which held that a Ten Commandments monument in Oklahoma represented an unconstitutional governmental endorsement of religion: Six judges voted in favor of en banc review, and six judges voted against it. You can access today’s order denying rehearing en banc, and two opinions dissenting therefrom, at this link.

The original three-judge Tenth Circuit panel’s ruling can be accessed here, while my earlier coverage of that ruling appears at this link.

Lastly, the federal district court’s ruling in this case can be accessed here, while my earlier coverage of that ruling appears at this link.

“No. 3 Republican to back Sotomayor for high court”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Rove Had Heavier Hand in Prosecutor Firings Than Previously Known”: Carrie Johnson of The Washington Post has a news update that begins, “Political adviser Karl Rove and other high-ranking figures in the Bush White House played a greater role than previously understood in the firing of federal prosecutors almost three years ago, according to e-mails obtained by The Washington Post, in a scandal that led to mass Justice Department resignations and an ongoing criminal probe.”

The en banc Fifth Circuit has certified for U.S. Supreme Court review “whether the prosecution of Seale for a fatal kidnapping that occurred in 1964 but was not indicted under federal law until 2007 is barred by a federal limitations period”: Today’s order, from which six judges have noted their dissent, issued in the case captioned United States v. James Ford Seale.

In her dissent from today’s certification order, Chief Judge Edith H. Jones writes:

Although the certification falls within the permissible scope of Sup. Ct. Rule 19, it is not worth this busy court’s time or that of the also-busy Supreme Court to pursue that path. The likelihood of the Court’s accepting certification, based on past usage, is virtually nil. The Court has accepted Rule 19 certifications only four times in more than sixty years.

This blog’s earlier coverage of the case can be accessed here and here.

Update: The “Fifth Circuit Blog” offers this coverage of today’s order.

The Associated Press reports that “High court asked to review civil rights-era case.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “A question for the Court.”

“Appeals court will reconsider challenge to county fair gun ban; Long-running lawsuit filed in 1999 by gun show promoters”: Bay City News Service has this report.

And law.com reports that “9th Circuit Giving Alameda Gun Case Another Look.”

Additional coverage of yesterday’s Ninth Circuit order granting rehearing en banc can be accessed via this earlier post.

“Appeals court hears arguments in Ky. NASCAR suit”: The Associated Press has this report about a case argued today before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

“Interesting Tenth Circuit Concurring Opinion on the Right To Bear Arms and Felons”: Eugene Volokh has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Did Heller say too much?”

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

“New hearing for fairgrounds gun ban”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update that begins, “A federal appeals court in San Francisco set aside its ruling Wednesday – the only one of its kind in the nation – that allowed private citizens to claim a constitutional right to bear arms in challenging state and local gun laws.”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has this post about today’s order granting rehearing en banc of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

My earlier coverage of the original three-judge Ninth Circuit panel’s ruling can be accessed here.

“Senators poised to name Martin to federal appeals court”: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a news update that begins, “Senators grilled President Barack Obama’s nominee for the federal appeals court in Atlanta over her controversial ruling in a recent child sex case, commended her for her overall record and appear poised to approve her nomination to the full Senate.” Earlier this month, the newspaper published an article by Bill Rankin headlined “Appeals nominee set sentence rules aside; Ruling in Internet child-sex case outrages House Republicans.”

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” David Ingram has a post titled “11th Circuit Nominee Questioned on Sentencing.”

“High Court Ruling Hits Plaintiffs’ Attorneys; Term’s ‘Sleeper Case’ Requires Plaintiffs to List Specific, Detailed Allegations to Reach Discovery”: Yesterday in The Daily Journal of California, Lawrence Hurley had an article that begins, “Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, plaintiffs’ attorneys now have to think twice before filing civil lawsuits in federal court.”

Update: Coincidentally, yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a per curiam opinion remanding the Iqbal v. Ashcroft case back to the trial court to allow Iqbal to seek leave to amend his complaint.

“Big Names Weigh In on Attorney-Client Privilege Issue; Elena Kagan, ABA on opposing sides of case that could change the way many appellate courts deal with issue”: law.com has a report that begins, “The Obama administration and a group of law professors and former federal judges are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a Georgia company’s plea for a change in the way many appellate courts deal with questions of attorney-client privilege.”

Bashman news from here and there: The Journal News of Westchester, New York reports today that “Pair bash man with bottle, shoe in Haverstraw road-rage incident.”

“Knowing the meaning of the Second Amendment right and having identified its individual nature, the issue becomes what limits the government may place on the right. Indeed, this is where the Second Amendment rubber meets the road.” In an interesting concurring opinion issued today, Tenth Circuit Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich questions whether “the broad scope of 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(g)(1)–which permanently disqualifies all felons from possessing firearms–would conflict with the ‘core’ self-defense right embodied in the Second Amendment.” Judge Tymkovich’s concurrence goes on to observe that “Non-violent felons, for example, certainly have the same right to self-defense in their homes as non-felons.”

“Senate Panel Endorses Sotomayor”: Neil A. Lewis will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times. And today’s newspaper contains an article headlined “2 Republicans Announce Plans to Vote Against Sotomayor.”

In Wednesday’s edition of The Washington Post, Amy Goldstein and Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Senate Committee Endorses Sotomayor; Just One Republican Sides With Democrats in Backing the Supreme Court Nominee.” In addition, Wednesday’s installment of Dana Milbank’s “Washington Sketch” column will carry the headline “Plenty of Static on the Party Line About Sotomayor.” And today’s newspaper contains an editorial entitled “Target: Sonia Sotomayor; The NRA’s cheap shot against the Supreme Court nominee.”

Wednesday in The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage and Mark Silva will have an article headlined “Sonia Sotomayor wins backing of Senate committee; The Senate Judiciary Committee mostly sticks to party lines in a 13-6 vote; The full Senate is expected to confirm the appointment next week.” And in today’s newspaper, David G. Savage has an article headlined “Panel vote on Sotomayor likely to reflect divide; Obama’s Supreme Court pick is expected be approved by a Senate committee on a near-party line vote; Lawmakers once showed deference to presidents’ choices, but now ‘it’s a new ballgame,’ says one.”

Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin will have an article headlined “Sotomayor Moves Closer to High Court.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Sotomayor gets committee nod for Supreme Court seat; But the Senate panel vote is nearly party-line, with just one Republican approving her nomination.”

The Associated Press has reports headlined “Judiciary Committee OKs Sotomayor for high court“; “Texas’ Hutchison voting against Sotomayor“; and “La. Sen. Vitter says he’ll vote against Sotomayor.”

And The Houston Chronicle has a news update headlined “Hutchison will vote ‘nay’ on Sotomayor.”

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting: In today’s newspaper he has articles headlined “Nuclear plants adequately guarded, court rules” (access last Friday’s Ninth Circuit ruling at this link) and “UC Santa Cruz defeats conservatives in court” (my earlier coverage of last Friday’s D.C. Circuit ruling appears at this link).

“Pay to Sue on the Docket: The trial bar on trial in Pennsylvania.” Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal will contain an editorial that begins, “Good news: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear an unusual but important legal challenge in a case involving Governor Ed Rendell’s hiring of a contingency fee law firm to sue a drug manufacturer on behalf of the state.”

“Obama will close Gitmo on time, officials say; The administration also tells Congress Tuesday that it will decide the status of all 229 detainees by Oct. 1”: Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

And Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has a news update headlined “Young Afghan in Camp Iguana, playing Wii.”

“Radio host denies threatening federal judges”: The Chicago Tribune has a news update that begins, “An Internet radio host pleaded not guilty today to threatening to kill three federal appellate judges in Chicago and then sought his release from custody, saying he has been an informant for the FBI.”

And The Associated Press reports that “N.J. blogger pleads not guilty to threatening judges, claims to be past FBI informant.”

Today’s bond hearing occurred before U.S. Magistrate Judge Martin C. Ashman of the Northern District of Illinois.

“Federal Judge Evans will move to senior status”: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has a news update that begins, “Federal Appeals Court Judge Terence Evans has notified President Barack Obama that he will move into semi-retirement Jan. 7 – the 30-year anniversary of when he first took the federal bench.”

Programming note: For much of today, I’ll be at the offices of trial counsel in a case that’s likely soon to be headed for appeal involving a client of mine. Additional posts will appear here later today.

“Panel to vote on Sotomayor, confirmation likely”: The Associated Press has this report.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on the nomination at a hearing scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. eastern time today. The committee’s live video feed can be accessed via this link.

“Conservatives think Sotomayor could give them political boost”: David Lightman of McClatchy Newspapers has this report.

And The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Sotomayor roundup: How Republicans will vote; Five GOP senators have announced their intentions ahead of Tuesday’s Judiciary Committee vote on the Supreme Court nominee.”

“California Supreme Court says paralyzed grad can take bar exam”: The Sacramento Bee has this news update.

“Grassley to vote against Sotomayor confirmation”: The Des Moines Register has this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Grassley to oppose Sotomayor.”