“Judge delays Oklahoma plan to post abortion details online; An Oklahoma law would require women having an abortion to fill out an anonymous questionnaire, the results of which would be made public; A legal challenge to the law will be decided Feb. 19, a judge said Friday”: The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

“Court overturns California ban on violent felons owning body armor; Police advocacy group says the ruling will put officers and the public in danger; ‘It’s going to make criminals more bold and more likely to shoot it out with the police,’ one official says”: The Los Angeles Times contains this article today.

My earlier coverage of the ruling appears at this link.

“Gun maker hails Utah’s bid against fed regulation; Guns made, sold and kept within state lines are exempt from fed rules, proposal says”: This article appears today in The Salt Lake Tribune.

“Signed and unconstitutional”: Today in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Bradley A. Smith has an op-ed that begins, “Gov. Jim Doyle has signed legislation requiring Wisconsin taxpayers to fund political campaigns for the state Supreme Court, exposing the state to an almost-certain lawsuit on First Amendment grounds.”

“Grandparents fight for rights”: This article about Iowa’s grandparent visitation law appeared Friday in The Des Moines Register.

“Judge mulls pivotal issues in Kan. abortion trial”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A judge is weighing a critical legal question in the case of a man who confessed to killing one of the nation’s few late-term abortion providers: Can the man claim at his trial that the slaying was justified to save the lives of unborn children?”

“Christian group wages campus fight; Schools’ codes of conduct clashing with religious views”: This article about Alliance Defense Fund appears today in The Arizona Republic.

“U.S. Supreme Court: A cast of interesting characters.” UPI has a report that begins, “Who are these people on the U.S. Supreme Court, and why do they think they have the right to tell the rest of us what to do?”

“State high court refines idea of ‘ownership’ in truck seizure; Under forfeiture law, ‘innocent owner’ also responsible for a vehicle’s seizure, ruling says”: Yesterday’s edition of The Minneapolis Star Tribune contained an article that begins, “If two Minnesotans own something together, and one of them commits a crime that causes that property to be seized, the innocent co-owner is not entitled to get it back, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled this week.”

And Friday’s edition of The St. Paul Pioneer Press contained an article headlined “Wife drunk and driving the family’s car? Tough; Cops can still seize it, state high court rules.”

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

“Justices Revisit Rule Requiring Lab Testimony”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.