“Obama will renominate Butler as a federal judge”: The Wisconsin State Journal has this news update.

“Calif. High Court Justices Push Past Krishnas’ Airport Appeal”: law.com has this report.

“Examining the ‘Life and Constitution’ of Antonin Scalia”: This segment (transcript with video) featuring Joan Biskupic appeared on this evening’s broadcast of the PBS program “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.”

And in today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle, Steve Weinberg has this review of Biskupic’s new book, “American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.”

“Appeals court uneasy with allowing detainees to challenge imprisonment”: The Washington Post has a news update that begins, “An appeals court expressed uneasiness Thursday with the ramifications of allowing some detainees at a U.S. military prison in Afghanistan to challenge their imprisonment in federal court.”

“Bagram Detainees Argue for Habeas Rights at D.C. Circuit”: Mike Scarcella has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Parsing Boumediene: Habeas rights beyond Guantanamo?”

“Battle over Bagram detainees echoes Gitmo argument”: Pete Yost of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court panel expressed deep skepticism Thursday about giving three detainees at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan the same right to challenge their indefinite detention as prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.”

Three-judge Second Circuit panel ponders what constitutes a “significant romantic relationship”: According to an opinion issued today, “This appeal requires us to consider the validity of a condition of supervised release that obligated [the defendant-appellant], upon entry into a ‘significant romantic relationship,’ to notify the United States Probation Department and to inform the other party to the relationship of his conviction.”

In the course of striking down that condition of supervised release as unduly vague, the opinion goes on to explain:

We easily conclude that people of common intelligence (or, for that matter, of high intelligence) would find it impossible to agree on the proper application of a release condition triggered by entry into a “significant romantic relationship.” What makes a relationship “romantic,” let alone “significant” in its romantic depth, can be the subject of endless debate that varies across generations, regions, and genders. For some, it would involve the exchange of gifts such as flowers or chocolates; for others, it would depend on acts of physical intimacy; and for still others, all of these elements could be present yet the relationship, without a promise of exclusivity, would not be “significant.” The history of romance is replete with precisely these blurred lines and misunderstandings. See, e.g., Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, The Marriage of Figaro (1786); Jane Austen, Mansfield Park (Thomas Egerton, 1814); When Harry Met Sally (Columbia Pictures 1989); He’s Just Not That Into You (Flower Films 2009).

Thus, although “He’s Just Not That Into You” may not receive an Academy Award nomination, the film has already received mention in a federal appellate court ruling. Take that, “The Hurt Locker“!

“Gender and U. S. Supreme Court Oral Argument on the Roberts Court: An Empirical Examination of the Sotomayor Hypothesis.” James Cleith Phillips and Edward Carter have posted this paper online at SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“).

If the authors had listed themselves in reverse order, we could call it the Carter-Phillips paper.

“The Sins of Guantanamo: We’re keeping detainees in the camp because we’re afraid of things they haven’t done yet?” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Courthouse workers describe reactions to shooting”: This article appears today in The Las Vegas Review-Journal.

And The Las Vegas Sun reports today that “Las Vegas City Council honors victims of federal courthouse shooting; Mayor calls shooting rampage ‘horrible episode in our city’s history.’”

“Quigley, others urge court to leave handgun ban alone”: Today in The Chicago Sun-Times, Abdon M. Pallasch has an article that begins, “U.S. Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Chicago, had 54 members of congress join his friend-of-the-court brief Wednesday that urged the court to leave Chicago’s handgun ban in place.”

“Indeglia, R.I. high court nominee, is known for dedication, ‘quiet strength'”: The Providence Journal contains this article today.

“Cox criticizes Obama over carp; He wants to meet with president on issue”: This article appears today in The Detroit Free Press.

And The Christian Science Monitor reports today that “Michigan balks at Obama’s stance in Asian carp fight; The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it is backing Illinois in a lawsuit over how to stop Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes; Officials in Michigan, who brought the lawsuit, claim that Obama is favoring his home state.”

“Antitrust Case Has Implications Far Beyond N.F.L.” The New York Times contains this article today, along with a related article headlined “American Needle: From Green Celluloid Visors to Caps of All Kinds.”

And at Forbes.com, Tom Van Riper has an essay entitled “The NFL Vs. American Needle: Many are hyping the upcoming Supreme Court case as the biggest in sports history; Don’t believe it.”

“The price of justice: The Supreme Court should not backtrack on its ruling that the defense has a right to cross-examine experts who present lab reports for the prosecution.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Jurors Turned Against Companies in 2009 Product-Defect Cases”: Bloomberg News has this report.