“Assuring judicial impartiality: New disqualification rule will make justices more accountable.” This editorial appears today in The Detroit Free Press.

And the newspaper also contains an op-ed by columnist Brian Dickerson entitled “State’s feuding justices take their drama to a new stage.”

“Fund industry awaits ruling in charging case”: Financial Times contains a report that begins, “For nearly 30 years the US fund industry has enjoyed overwhelming success in quashing retail investors’ claims of being overcharged in comparison with institutional investors. To date, no trial judge has ever ruled in favour of a plaintiff in such cases, although some so-called excessive-fee cases have been settled. That could soon change.”

“Cox to file lawsuit to block carp; Legal action to close canal locks may be filed in Supreme Court”: Today’s edition of The Detroit Free Press contains an article that begins, “Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox plans to file a federal lawsuit, possibly in the U.S. Supreme Court, as soon as the paperwork is done to try to shut down canal locks leading to Lake Michigan, through which Asian carp could escape into the Great Lakes.”

“Conrad Black appeals ‘honest services fraud’ conviction; ‘Honest services’ law intended for political corruption; Conrad Black claims law was abused by prosecutors”: The Guardian (UK) has this report.

And UPI has a report headlined “U.S. Supreme Court: Will justices hobble corruption posse?”

“Justice Gableman’s positions have lawyers defending their role”: Today’s edition of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel contains an article that begins, “The tension between defense attorneys and state Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman is growing.”

And The Capital Times of Madison, Wisconsin has posted online an op-ed by State Senator Mary Lazich entitled “Let the people pick their Supreme Court.”

“Lincoln and Habeas: Of Merryman, Milligan, and McCardle.” Law professor John Yoo has posted this essay online at SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“).

“The vote was about protecting state’s voters”: In Sunday’s edition of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Patience Drake Roggensack, a Justice serving on the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, will have a very interesting op-ed that begins, “Recently, the Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted a rule that states that a justice is not disqualified from a proceeding solely because his or her campaign received a lawful contribution, or because a group over which the justice has no control ran a campaign advertisement. Some articles in the media have implied that past campaign contributions or independent advertisements caused the justices to vote in favor of that rule. Those articles have not presented the full story of the concerns that the court’s rule addressed. Accordingly, they are misleading and deserve a response.”

In her op-ed, Justice Roggensack explains that “I voted for the rule because of my concern that the citizens who elected justices were in danger of having their votes for judicial candidates cancelled, solely due to another person’s lawful contribution or due to an independent advertisement over which the justice had no control. Let me explain — if a person made a lawful campaign contribution and that caused the justice to be disqualified from deciding legal issues presented to the court, all of the other voters who chose that justice because they believed he or she was fair, independent and knowledgeable about the law would have their votes cancelled because of the justice’s disqualification.”

“Police interrogation: Do you know your lawyer can be present? The US Supreme Court is considering a Florida case in which the defendant — and Florida courts — said he hadn’t been adequately informed that his lawyer could be present.” Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

“Can Congress create agencies insulated from White House control? The US Supreme Court is considering whether an oversight board created by Congress intrudes on executive branch authority — the latest battleground in the dispute over separation of powers.” Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

And Dow Jones Newswires report that “Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Accounting Board.”

“Obama administration seeks to kill Gitmo lawsuit”: Pete Yost of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A 2008 Supreme Court ruling giving Guantanamo Bay prisoners the right to challenge their indefinite detention does not apply in the case of two detainees who committed suicide, the Obama administration says in newly filed court papers.”

Available online from law.com: An article reports that “2nd Circuit Revives Starbucks’ Mark Dispute With ‘Charbucks.’” My earlier coverage of the Second Circuit’s ruling appears at this link.

And in other news, “N.J. Supreme Court Weighs Travelers’ Right of Privacy in Baggage They Don’t Claim.”

“10 more firefighters receive promotions”: Today’s edition of The New Haven Register contains an article that begins, “It had been a decade since the city, blocked by protracted and racially charged litigation, promoted any officers in the Fire Department. Now, the city has promoted 24 in the last 72 hours as it navigates through the post-Ricci legal landscape.”

“Limits to jury damage awards to be debated by Missouri Supreme Court”: This article will appear Sunday in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

“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.

“Court bars practice of migrants pleading guilty in large groups”: Today in The Arizona Daily Star, Howard Fischer has an article that begins, “A federal appeals court has blocked federal magistrates in Tucson from taking guilty pleas from illegal immigrants in large groups.”

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: Mass criminal immigration hearings unlawful.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“Questions about late death penalty appeal; Lawyer tied to Keller incident could face sanctions in latest missed deadline”: Chuck Lindell has this article today in The Austin American-Statesman.

“Plaintiff asked the court to issue a declaratory judgment stating that the Senate must act on [judicial] nominations within four months and that any nominee not put to a vote in that time would be deemed confirmed by the Senate ‘as a matter of law.'” As a non-precedential ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued yesterday indicates, someone other than Law Professor Carl Tobias also cares a great deal about getting judges confirmed.

Perhaps finding the op-ed market on that subject all but cornered by Professor Tobias, attorney John Marshall Cogswell did what comes naturally to so many attorneys — he sued in court. Unfortunately for Cogswell, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed his suit for lack of standing and for raising a non-justiciable political question, among other reasons. And yesterday, the Tenth Circuit affirmed that dismissal.