“Pfizer Unit Must Pay Prempro Damages, Jury Concludes”: Bloomberg News has a report that begins, “A Pfizer Inc. unit concealed the breast-cancer risks of its hormone-replacement therapy drug Prempro and is liable for $3.7 million in damages to an Illinois woman, a Philadelphia jury ruled in the second phase of a trial.”

“Candidates for Pa. Supreme Court debate”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

And today in The Philadelphia Daily News, columnist John Baer has an essay entitled “West meets East in Supreme Court debate dustup.”

“State lets parks crack down on nude beachgoers”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “The California Supreme Court poured cold water on skinny-dippers Thursday, allowing state parks officers to enforce a ban on nudity at state beaches, including those that have been informally designated as ‘clothing optional.'”

Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports today that “Supreme Court Denies Review of Nude Sunbathing Ruling.”

The Orange County Register reports that “Nudists lose fight to keep beach clothing-optional; The state’s highest court refused to hear a naturist group’s appeal for Trail 6 in San Onofre.”

And The Marin Independent Journal reports that “State can crack down on nude bathers, but probably won’t in Marin.”

“Minnesota Supreme Court rules water in woman’s bong counts as drug”: The St. Paul Pioneer Press contains this article today.

You can access yesterday’s 4-3 ruling of the Supreme Court of Minnesota at this link.

“Police for Profit: A big property seizure case hits the Supreme Court.” This editorial will appear Saturday in The Wall Street Journal.

“Skilling’s Enron Appeal: Is ‘Honest Services Fraud’ a Bogus Charge?” Time magazine has this report.

“Chief Justice Roberts dedicates Stanford Law School’s Rehnquist courtyard; In a salute to William Rehnquist, his successor on the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts said Rehnquist will be remembered for changing how law is considered”: Stanford News Service has this report.

“Coakley had tough time in court; Fails to mention loss in Washington”: Today’s edition of The Boston Globe contains an article that begins, “It was a bold decision to argue the case herself, as Attorney General Martha Coakley chose to represent Massachusetts personally before the US Supreme Court last year in a nationally watched case involving the right of criminal defendants to challenge crime lab reports in court.”

“Thomas to other Supreme Court justices: Hush!” The Associated Press has this report.

The Tuscaloosa News has an update headlined “US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas visits UA.”

And earlier, today’s edition of The Crimson White contains an article headlined “Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to speak to students.”

“Scalia, Breyer to Discuss Constitution at UA-Hosted Event; The UA’s William H. Rehnquist Center is hosting this rare opportunity to watch two sitting Supreme Court justices discuss the U.S. Constitution; Arizona Public Media will broadcast the discussion live”: The Office of University Communications at the University of Arizona issued this news release yesterday.

Once the discussion gets underway on Monday, it will be streamed live, online via this link by Arizona Public Media.

“Strict Oklahoma abortion laws spark court battles”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Paul Clement, 43, Celebrates His 50th (Argument)”: Tony Mauro has this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

Supreme Court of Kansas holds that a criminal defendant must have used actual force to justify a self-defense jury instruction: Today, the Supreme Court of Kansas issued a ruling in which the majority opinion begins: “The issue presented is whether a defendant must use actual force to justify a jury instruction on self-defense. We answer this question ‘yes.'”

The court’s Chief Justice issued a dissenting opinion, in which another justice joined, giving an example of the absurdity of the majority’s holding:

Consider the following example. One evening, a large man approaches a woman in a menacing manner and threatens, “I’m going to hurt you!” Worried for her life, the woman takes a gun from her purse, points it at her assailant, and says, “Stay where you are!” The assailant turns and runs.

Assume for the sake of the example that the woman is subsequently charged with aggravated assault. While she successfully repelled her attacker with constructive force, she is not entitled to a self-defense instruction according to the majority opinion. Had she actually shot her assailant, she may very well have been entitled to that instruction under that same rationale. This bizarre result cannot have been intended by the legislature [in the statute in question].

Thanks to a Kansas-based reader for bringing the decision to my attention.

“Now a Black Firefighter Is Suing New Haven: Did the Supreme Court leave the city holding the bag in last summer’s Ricci ruling?” Law professor Richard Thompson Ford has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.