“Yoo torture controversy ensnares state lawyer”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update that begins, “Critics of John Yoo, the author of the Bush administration’s so-called torture memos, want a lawyer in state Attorney General Jerry Brown’s office to drop his plans to teach a constitutional law class with the UC Berkeley professor next semester.”

“The YouTube Bully and the Sex-Messaging Cop: Courts stick up for the constitutional rights of online troublemakers.” Emily Bazelon has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Judges Skeptical of Defamation Claim Tied to 1998 Missile Strike”: Mike Scarcella has this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“The words we are asked to interpret were terms of art, and their meanings were fixed by judicial definition and consistent usage. To ignore this evidence would be to turn the plain meaning rule on its head.” Those words were written by Chief Judge Edith H. Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in an en banc concurring opinion in which Circuit Judges Jerry E. Smith and Priscilla R. Owen and Senior Circuit Judge Thomas M. Reavley joined.

The issue that divided the en banc Fifth Circuit 9-7 in an opinion issued yesterday concerns the “plain meaning” of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 — specifically, whether the purpose of the statute is to protect competition and, therefore, only those practices that will likely affect competition adversely violate the Act. Although that issue may be rather obscure, the opinions are quite interesting because they discuss, at length, when the so-called “plain meaning” rule of statutory construction should or should not apply.

“A Caribbean Christmas for Justice Sotomayor”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Sonia Sotomayor showed off her Spanish skills and love of Puerto Rican food Wednesday on her first visit to Puerto Rico as a U.S. Supreme Court justice.”

“Convict Ted Klaudt copyrights his name; Former lawmaker says news media must get his permission before running story”: This article appears today in The Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

And Chet Brokaw of The Associated Press has a report headlined “Ex-lawmaker convicted of rape: Name is copyrighted.”

“Faith-based prison rehab case reversed”: The Tampa Tribune today contains an article that begins, “Advocates for the separation of church and state scored a victory Tuesday when the 1st District Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal of their claim that state-funded, ‘faith-based’ rehabilitation of ex-prisoners is unconstitutional.”

Today’s edition of The Florida Times-Union contains an article headlined “Appellate opinion keeps faith-based case alive.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Challenge to Fla. prison religious aid reinstated.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of Florida’s First District Court of Appeal at this link.

“Warrantless cell phone searches ruled off-limits”: In today’s edition of The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch, James Nash has an article that begins, “Police can’t examine the contents of a suspect’s cell phone without a warrant, a divided Ohio Supreme Court ruled yesterday in a first-of-its-kind case over privacy and technology.”

And The Dayton Daily News reports today that “Cell phone search requires a warrant, court rules; Greene County case sparked ruling.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Ohio Supreme Court ruling can be accessed here.

“Delaware courts: Appeals Court to hear suit on execution procedures; If ruling upheld, death penalty would resume.” Today in The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware, Sean O’Sullivan has an article that begins, “The class-action lawsuit that has been holding up executions in Delaware for more than three years will be headed to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals today.”

“Former Justice O’Connor leads push to end judicial elections”: Bill Mears of CNN.com has this report.

“En Banc 9th Circuit Grapples With State Secrets Privilege in CIA Rendition Case”: law.com has this report.

My most recent earlier coverage appears at this link.

“Court hears credit-bid arguments in newspaper case”: Today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer contains an article that begins, “Amid an arcane legal debate over the interpretation of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, a federal appeals panel yesterday heard arguments as to whether Philadelphia Newspapers L.L.C.’s lenders can use the money they are owed to purchase the media firm at auction.”

And The Philadelphia Daily News reports today that “Newspapers, creditors vie on credit-bid issue.”