“First opinions expected Tuesday”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog,” casting doubt on the hypothesis I advanced earlier this afternoon.

“Italian jury finds Amanda Knox guilty of murdering British roommate”: CNN.com has this report.

“NBC Developing TV Series Based on SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein”: Debra Cassens Weiss has this post at ABA Journal’s “Law News Now” blog, noting a post titled “Supreme Drama: NBC aims to make a new TV series out of the life of a Washington lawyer” at the “Capital Comment Blog” of Washingtonian magazine. Now we know why Comcast bought NBC.

“House Judiciary Schedules Hearing on Judge Recusals”: David Ingram has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Security company owner cleared to sue District over arrest”: The Washington Post has a news update that begins, “A federal appeals court has cleared the way for the owner of a Virginia security company to sue the District for seeking to arrest him on charges of possessing unregistered handguns.”

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Mike Scarcella has a post titled “Federal Appeals Court Rules Against D.C. in Gun Suit.”

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

“Jury gets case of blogger accused of judge threats”: The Associated Press has this report.

And at the “City Room” blog of The New York Times, William Glaberson has a post titled “Prosecutors Say Blogger Was Inciting Hate.”

“Behind Justice Stevens’ Recusal in Florida Case”: SCOTUS recusal guru Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“President Obama Rides To The Defense of John Yoo”: At the “Concurring Opinions” blog, Dave Hoffman has this post about an amicus brief that the federal government filed yesterday in law professor John Yoo’s pending Ninth Circuit appeal. (Via Jon Adler at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”)

I previously linked here to Yoo’s opening brief on appeal.

Delayed issuance of U.S. Supreme Court opinions in argued cases has finally been explained — it’s the Jan Crawford Greenburg effect! At “The Volokh Conspiracy,” quarterback John Elwood has a post titled “So . . . Where Are The (Argued) Supreme Court Cases? Part Deux.”

The most obvious explanation, at least to me, is that correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg is sidelined from covering the Court until January 1, 2010 due to non-compete issues implicated in her move from ABC News to CBS News. The Court’s first opinion issuance date of 2010 appears to be January 12th, so look for a plenty of decisions in argued cases to issue from that point forward.

“No Testimony From Judges in Prosecution of Radio Host”: The New York Times today contains an article that begins, “Federal prosecutors rested their case Thursday in the trial of a New Jersey Internet broadcaster charged with threatening federal judges, without calling any of the three appeals court judges the broadcaster had written ‘deserve to be killed.'”

And The Associated Press reports that “NYC trial ending for man accused of judge threats.”

“Abortion Battle Shifts to Clinic in Nebraska”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an article that begins, “The national battle over abortion, for decades firmly planted outside the Kansas clinic of Dr. George R. Tiller, has erupted here in suburban Omaha, where a longtime colleague has taken up the cause of late-term abortions. Since Dr. Tiller was shot to death in May, his colleague, Dr. LeRoy H. Carhart, has hired two people who worked at Dr. Tiller’s clinic and has trained his own staff members in the technical intricacies of performing late-term abortions.”

Federal judge wants to watch “Girls Gone Wild” videos: Hey, it’s all in a day’s work. The News Herald of Panama City, Florida reports today that “Judge wants all GGW video footage; Will use content to help decide motion to dismiss case against Joe Francis.” The newspaper has posted the court’s order at this link.

“Prop. 8 backers likely to win disclosure fight”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “A federal judge probably violated the Constitution when he ordered backers of Proposition 8, the initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California, to give their campaign strategy documents to opponents trying to overturn the measure, an appeals court said Thursday.”

“Supreme Court tightens Internet luring rules; Decision says offenders need not meet intended victims to be convicted of luring children for sexual purposes”: Kirk Makin has this article today in The Toronto Globe and Mail.

The Toronto Star reports today that “Online ‘grooming’ of kids ruled a crime; Top court orders new trial for Alberta man acquitted of luring Ontario 12-year-old.”

The Toronto Sun reports that “Supreme Court clarifies Internet luring law.”

The Canadian Press reports that “Supreme Court orders new trial for man acquitted in online sex chats with 12-year-old.”

CBC News reports that “Top court orders new trial in internet luring case.”

And Canwest News Service reports that “Top court ruling broadly defines Internet luring.”

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

“Teacher-student sex cases to test consent defense”: This article appears today in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

“Biographer takes a look into Scalia’s influence, defiance”: At CNN.com, Bill Mears has this interview with Joan Biskupic, whose new book is titled “American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.”

“Selective Empathy”: At the “Opinionator” blog of The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse has a post that begins, “In overturning a death sentence this week of a Korean War veteran whose lawyer failed to inform the jury about the man’s combat-related traumatic stress disorder, the Supreme Court drew cheers from veterans’ groups and death-penalty opponents. But it also raised a question: Is selective empathy better than no empathy at all?”

“Sarbanes-Oxley Law May Be Reshaped by U.S. Supreme Court Clash”: Greg Stohr and Ian Katz of Bloomberg News have this report.

And today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal contains an editorial entitled “Sarbanes-Oxley on Trial: The hasty 2002 law gets a potent constitutional challenge.”

“ND Supreme Court mulls value of breast implants”: The Associated Press has this report.