“Court of Appeals Mourns Loss of Senior Circuit Judge Melvin T. Brunetti”: The Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued this news release today.

“Maher Arar’s U.S. lawsuit rejected; Victims of extraordinary rendition have no recourse to sue Washington for torture suffered overseas, appellate court rules”: The Toronto Globe and Mail contains this news update.

Reuters reports that “Canadian sent to Syria can’t sue U.S. over torture.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Appeals Court Upholds Rendition Suit Dismissal.”

My earlier coverage of today’s en banc Second Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Mutual Fund Fee Dispute Divides U.S. Supreme Court”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has a report that begins, “U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled they are split over the role judges should play in reviewing the compensation of mutual fund advisers in a case that might force reductions in the $90 billion in annual fees advisers collect.”

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court considers mutual fund fees.”

And Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Justices seem unwilling to get involved in fees.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Jones v. Harris Associates L.P., No. 08-586.

“Time Gets Away From Supreme Court”: Tony Mauro has this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Full Appeals Court Rejects Suit in Rendition Case”: At the “City Room” blog of The New York Times, Benjamin Weiser has a post that begins, “A federal appeals court in New York ruled on Monday that Maher Arar, a Canadian man who claimed that American officials sent him to Syria in 2002 to be tortured, cannot sue for damages because Congress has not authorized such suits.”

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “Appeals court: Detained Canadian cannot sue in US.”

You can access today’s 181-page ruling of the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

The en banc ruling was by a 7-4 margin. Each of the four dissenting judges issued a separate opinion in which the other three dissenting judges joined.

Unanimous three-judge Eighth Circuit panel affirms jury’s $2.7 million compensatory damages award in favor of woman who proved hormone replacement therapy drugs caused her breast cancer and orders new trial limited to punitive damages against defendant Wyeth: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at this link.

Update: Bloomberg News reports that “Pfizer Doesn’t Have to Pay $27 Million Prempro Award.”

“With Obama Proceeding Reasonably To Fill Federal Judgeships, the Bottleneck Is the Senate”: Law professor Carl Tobias has this essay online at FindLaw.

“Judge snubbed U.S. Islamic groups in secret ruling”: Josh Gerstein has this post at his “Under the Radar” blog at Politico.com.

Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: The Court has posted today’s Order List online at this link. The Court granted review in three cases and requested the views of the Solicitor General in four cases.

Justice John Paul Stevens issued a statement respecting the dismissal of the certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. James Ford Seale. Justice Stevens’ statement, in which Justice Antonin Scalia has joined, is essentially a dissent from the Court’s refusal to answer the certified question. Justice Stevens’ statement concludes:

The certification process has all but disappeared in recent decades. The Court has accepted only a handful of certified cases since the 1940s and none since 1981; it is a newsworthy event these days when a lower court even tries for certification. Section 1254(2) and this Court’s Rule 19 remain part of our law because the certification process serves a valuable, if limited, function. We ought to avail ourselves of it in an appropriate case. In my judgment, this case should be briefed and set for argument.

My earlier coverage of the Fifth Circuit’s certification order can be accessed here.

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court grants 3 cases, turns aside detainee plea.”

And in early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court to decide if two-person Labor Board legal“; “High court won’t review civil rights-era case“; and “Court won’t stop release of church documents.”

“Health insurance mandate alarms some; Critics say it may be unconstitutional to charge a penalty for not buying a product; Supporters compare the mandate to car insurance requirements”: David G. Savage had this article yesterday in The Los Angeles Times.

“Supreme Court race: Nasty campaign belittles quality candidates.” This editorial appears today in The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

“Bogle Takes on Mutual Fund Industry as Top Court Considers Fees”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Bogle Takes on Mutual Fund Industry as Top Court Considers Fees.”

Financial Times reports today that “Top US court to rule on mutual fund fees.”

MarketWatch reports that “Supreme Court case spotlights fund fees; Investors could see greater disclosure, better explanation of ownership costs.”

The New York Times contains an editorial entitled “The Court and Your Savings.”

And in The Wall Street Journal, Paul S. Atkins has an op-ed entitled “Tort Lawyers Target Mutual Funds.”