“A Revealing Term: What difference will a ‘wise Latina’ make? And other questions.” Law professor Jonathan H. Adler has this essay today at National Review Online.

“How Liberals Can Win by Losing at the Roberts Court: Three strategies for turning a defeat into a (relative) victory.” Law professor Richard L. Hasen (author of the “Election Law” blog) has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“The Trial of John Roberts”: In yesterday’s edition of The New York Times, law professor Jeffrey Rosen had an op-ed that begins, “Four years ago, when John Roberts became chief justice of the United States, he said that he hoped to emulate the modesty and unanimity of his greatest predecessor, John Marshall. But if Chief Justice Roberts presides over a broad, ideologically divided ruling in a campaign finance case the court heard last week, he risks being remembered instead as a conservative Earl Warren.”

“Changing political money: There’s a middle ground open to the Supreme Court in a key case on corporate/union campaign speech.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Nahmias adds conservative voice to Ga. high court; Prosecutor replaces a liberal jurist Sears”: Bill Rankin has this article today in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

“Bench Press: Obama and judicial restraint.” Jeffrey Toobin has this “Annals of Law” article in the September 21, 2009 issue of The New Yorker.

“Va. seeks November execution for DC-area sniper”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Taking On The Book Banners”: In The Washington Post today, columnist George F. Will has an op-ed that begins, “Last March, during the Supreme Court argument concerning the Federal Election Commission’s banning of a political movie, several justices were aghast. Suddenly and belatedly they saw the abyss that could swallow the First Amendment.”

“Senate Weighs New Shield Law; Reporters Would Have to Disclose Information in Special Cases”: Today’s edition of The Washington Post contains an article that begins, “The Senate Judiciary Committee this week will take up a new version of a reporter shield law.”

“Law used to indict Blagojevich challenged as vague”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Among the corruption charges faced by former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is a statute of just 28 words with enough pop to send big names to prison for corruption, but it’s under attack by those who consider it vague and unfair.”

“Jailhouse calls are not private, SJC rules; Conversations can be subpoenaed”: Today’s edition of The Boston Globe contains an article that begins, “In a 4-to-3 decision that could have a sweeping impact on grand jury investigations and prisoner privacy, the state’s highest court ruled yesterday that prosecutors may subpoena recordings of telephone calls made from jail by inmates and people who are being held while awaiting trial.”

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

“Legal Battle Plays Out: Online Attitude vs. Rules of the Bar.” John Schwartz will have this interesting article Sunday in The New York Times.

“Blogger’s pot case fires up fed judge”: Today’s edition of The Boston Herald contains an article that begins, “A federal judge was fuming yesterday over the case of left-leaning political blogger Andrew M. Sullivan, who was busted by park rangers on a Cape Cod national beach for pot possession on July 13, only to have the federal charges tossed by prosecutors.”

And today in The Boston Globe, Jonathan Saltzman has an article headlined “Dismissed marijuana charge raises judge’s ire; US attorney gave blogger a reprieve.”

“U.S. Supreme Court says California cannot delay prison plan; A proposal to reduce overcrowding must be submitted by the end of next week”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

And today in The San Jose Mercury News, Howard Mintz has an article headlined “Prison on the brink” that begins, “It’s nearing noon inside the central wing of the California Institution for Men, and it’s not hard to find evidence of how this has become Exhibit A in California’s prison crisis.”

“Lawyers’ Sanctions Lifted, but 3rd Circuit Judge Delivers Lecture; Case has been a cause celebre among defense lawyers who contend the four sanctioned lawyers had been unfairly targeted for using common legal tactics”: Shannon P Duffy will have this article Monday in The Legal Intelligencer.

You can access this recent ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at this link.

“High court won’t extend Calif. prison deadline”: The Associated Press has this report.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court acts on prisoner release case.”

You can access this evening’s order of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

“Prosecution Faces Skeptical Judge in Robert Wone Case”: Mike Scarcella has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Appeals Court Throws Out $358M Verdict Vs Microsoft”: Brent Kendall of Dow Jones Newswires has this report.

Reuters reports that “Microsoft $358 milion damage award overturned.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Microsoft Wins Ruling on $358 Million Alcatel Award.”

The Associated Press reports that “Verdict spares Microsoft $358M in patent damages.”

And The Seattle Times has a blog post titled “Microsoft wins appeal overturning $358 million damages award to Alcatel.”

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

“Kevin, Pat Williams can play this season; The appeals court affirmed U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson’s rulings in the banned-substance case involving the players”: The Mineapolis Star Tribune has this news update.

The St. Paul Pioneer Press has a news update headlined “Ruling clears Minnesota Vikings’ Kevin and Pat Williams to play this season.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Court says NFL can’t suspend 2 Vikings players.”

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

“Divided Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Abu Ghraib Contractors”: At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Mike Scarcella has a post that begins, “A sharply divided federal appeals court in Washington today ruled against a group of Iraqi nationals who are suing two government contractors for alleged torture at the Abu Ghraib detention facility.”

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

“On campus, Chief Justice Roberts still in charge”: This article appears today in The Michigan Daily.

And The Associated Press reports that “US chief justice says he, Sotomayor must get along.”

Gone but not entirely forgotten: While I was away on vacation in late August and early September 2009, I somehow still managed to get quoted in two separate appellate-related articles that published in The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.

Amaris Elliott-Engel was the author of both articles. The first, reporting on a recent ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, is headlined “Trial Judges Can Call for Second Bite at 1925(b) Apple.”

The second, reporting on a recent grant of review by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, is headlined “Court to Mull How Sr. Judge Must Be Served Under Rule 1925.”

“Caltech student’s arson convictions overturned; Citing his Asperger’s syndrome, a federal court also vacates the sentence of William Cottrell, who was convicted in 2004 of conspiracy and arson for vandalizing 125 SUVs in an environmental protest”: Carol J. Williams has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

According to the article, “The 9th Circuit panel had initially upheld Cottrell’s arson convictions in February, nearly three years after hearing appeal arguments. But on Thursday, a copy of the panel’s ‘amended memorandum’ arrived in the mail at the Pasadena office of Marvin Rudnick, one of Cottrell’s defense attorneys. Rudnick said he was surprised and baffled by the unusual means of informing his client of the significantly revised decision. The eight-page document was marked ‘not for publication.'”

This week’s amended non-precedential ruling consists of a majority opinion and an opinion dissenting in part.

“Media Advisory: USA v. Barry Bonds, 09-10079.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this media advisory yesterday.

The case is scheduled for oral argument next Thursday before a panel consisting of Circuit Judges Mary M. Schroeder, Stephen Reinhardt, and Carlos T. Bea.

“Arguments begin in appeal of dismissal of jury verdict in R.I. smoke shop raid”: Yesterday’s edition of The Providence (R.I.) Journal contained this article.

“U.S. Sentencing Commission Urged to Give Judges More Flexibility”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“Detainee Files Emergency Writ to Halt Hearings; Defense Team Asks Appeals Court to Find Military Commission Unconstitutional”: Today’s edition of The Washington Post contains an article that begins, “Military attorneys for Ramzi Binalshibh, an alleged conspirator in the Sept. 11 attacks, have filed an emergency writ with a federal court in an attempt to stop hearings in their client’s case at a military commission at Guantanamo Bay.”

And today in The Miami Herald, Carol Rosenberg reports that “9/11 lawyers ask civilian court to stop war court.”

You can access the court filing, made Wednesday in the D.C. Circuit, at this link.

“State’s Top Court Ready to Hear Challenge to Appointment of Lieutenant Governor”: The New York Times contains this article today.

“The Court and Campaign Finance”: This editorial appears today in The New York Times.

Fifth Circuit rejects constitutional challenge to the “immoral purpose” aspect of a federal statute that makes criminal “[t]he importation into the United States of any alien for the purpose of prostitution, or for any other immoral purpose”: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.

“[W]e conclude that the retroactive application of SORNA’s juvenile registration and reporting requirement violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.” So holds a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today, striking down as unconstitutional a portion of the federal law known as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 2006.

Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt is the author of the decision.

“Many have wondered what exactly the best tack is to take when trying to get a visit from the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. University officials went with football tickets to the Notre Dame game. It worked.” So begins an article headlined “Law School to celebrate 150th anniversary with Supreme Court Chief Justice” published yesterday in The Michigan Daily.

The law school’s invitation to the Chief Justice can be accessed here, while additional information about the visit can be accessed here.

By a vote of 6-4, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit refuses to switch sides on a question of law that’s already produced a 5-4 circuit split: Both the majority and the dissenting opinion contain interesting discussions of institutional concerns. According to the majority opinion, “When one circuit’s overruling would convert a 5-4 conflict into a 4-5 conflict, it is best to leave well enough alone.”

“DOD lawyer hedges on closing Gitmo by January”: The Associated Press has this report.

South Dakota inmate’s request for a succah behind bars leads to an interesting RLUIPA ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit: You can access today’s ruling at this link. Among other things, the appellate court rejects South Dakota’s challenge to the constitutionality of the federal law known as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.