“Judge dumps suit over Bush-era wiretapping”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this news update.

And at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog, David Kravets has a post titled “Judge Tosses NSA Spy Cases.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California at this link.

The organization Electronic Frontier Foundation has issued a news release headlined “EFF Plans Appeal of Jewel v. NSA Warrantless Wiretapping Case; Court Rules That Mass Surveillance of Americans is Immune From Judicial Review.”

“The Art of the Steal”: A soon-to-be-released documentary about moving the holdings of The Barnes Foundation from the location in Merion, Pennsylvania that the late Albert C. Barnes personally selected to a museum located in center city Philadelphia has been receiving very positive advance reviews. You can view the film’s trailer at this link.

“Court Gives Equal Standing to Gay Parents in Custody Cases”: Leo Strupczewski of The Legal Intelligencer has this news update (subscription required).

You can access yesterday’s en banc ruling of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania at this link.

“The Emerging Law of Detention: The Guantanamo Habeas Cases as Lawmaking.” Last night, I had this post linking to an audio segment that would appear (and since has appeared) on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

The subject of the NPR segment is a study that bears today’s date written by Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institution and Robert Chesney of the University of Texas Law School. The study is now available online, and you can access it either here (PDF consisting of full report) or here (executive summary in HTML).

“Court: ‘Tomboy’ clerk can sue hotel over firing.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “An Iowa hotel clerk who claims she was fired because she wasn’t pretty enough can sue the hotel where she worked, a federal appeals court has ruled.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at this link.

“Incorporation and Originalist Theory”: Law professor Lawrence B. Solum has posted this article online at SSRN. According to the article’s abstract, the article addresses “Does the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution incorporate the Bill of Rights contained in the first eight amendments? And how should an originalist answer that question?”

“Opening statements begin in abortion slaying trial”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Disenclerking the Supreme Court”: Guest bloggers Craig Lerner and Nelson Lund have this post today at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

Now we know for sure — that Crash Test Dummies song is indecent! This morning at his “Suits & Sentences” blog, Michael Doyle of McClatchy’s Washington Bureau has a post titled “Marine court martialed for saying ‘mmmm-mmmm-mmmm.’”

You can view a video of “Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm” on YouTube by clicking here.

“Roeder trial begins on Roe v. Wade anniversary”: This article appears today in The Wichita Eagle.

The Kansas City Star reports today that “Opening statements in Roeder trial expected Friday.”

And today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “Trial To Start For Abortion Doctor’s Alleged Killer.”

“Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times. The newspaper also contains an article headlined “Lobbyists Get Potent Weapon in Campaign Finance Ruling” and an editorial entitled “The Court’s Blow to Democracy.”

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes and Dan Eggen report that “Supreme Court rejects limits on corporate spending on political campaigns.” Barnes also has a news analysis headlined “High court shows it might be willing to act boldly.” The newspaper also contains an article headlined “Citizens United used ‘Hillary: The Movie’ to take on McCain-Feingold“; an editorial entitled “The Supreme Court removes important limits on campaign finance“; and an op-ed by Michael Waldman entitled “Campaign finance ruling reflects Supreme Court’s growing audacity.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that “Supreme Court OKs unlimited corporate spending on elections; The justices overturn a century of U.S. electoral law by a 5-4 vote; Millions of extra dollars are expected to start flowing from big business to Republican candidates.” The newspaper also contains articles headlined “Court ruling on campaign spending could pay off for GOP; Unfettered corporate contributions, coming on top of the Massachusetts Senate vote, may spell a double whammy for Democrats in congressional midterm elections” and “Supreme Court’s ruling on corporate campaign spending could affect state races; Sen. Barbara Boxer’s reelection campaign will largely be the testing ground for the new rules in California,” along with an editorial entitled “The 1st Amendment and corporate campaigning: Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that rolls back limits on corporate political spending could strengthen the hand of special interests” and an op-ed by Erwin Chemerinsky entitled “Conservatives embrace judicial activism in campaign finance ruling; The Supreme Court’s decision in favor of corporate spending in elections makes previous rhetoric laughable.”

In USA Today, Fredreka Schouten and Joan Biskupic have a front page article headlined “It’s a new era for campaign spending; High court rejects limits on well-funded backers.” Biskupic also has an article headlined “In dissent, a weary Stevens bemoans changed court.” You can click here for a more detailed online version of the article about Justice Stevens. And the newspaper contains an editorial entitled “Court’s campaign ruling threatens the public interest; It’s hard to see what good can come from unleashing companies, unions.”

In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “Court Kills Limits on Corporate Politicking.” The newspaper also contains an article headlined “Big Donors Plan Boost in Campaign Spending” and an editorial entitled “A Free Speech Landmark: Campaign-finance reform meets the Constitution.”

David Lightman, Margaret Talev and Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers report that “Ruling could magnify special interests’ role in U.S. politics.” Doyle also has an article headlined “Who’s activist now? In election spending case, conservatives.” And an article reports that “For longtime campaign limit foe, court’s ruling is a victory.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Supreme Court: Campaign-finance limits violate free speech; The Supreme Court campaign finance ruling on Thursday means corporations can spend freely on political ads leading up to elections; The Thursday decision invalidates a part of 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform law that sought to limit corporate influence.” The publication also has an editorial entitled “Supreme Court opens the money gates; By allowing more corporate and union money in federal campaigns, the high court risks corrupting lawmaking; Watchdogs must stay alert.”

Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal reports that “Critics, Dissenters Predict Wave of Corporate Money After Campaign Finance Ruing.”

The Washington Times reports that “High court unleashes political ad spending.”

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “Justices shift campaign-finance rules.”

And today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition” contained audio segments entitled “High Court Issues Key Ruling On Campaign Finance” (featuring Nina Totenberg) and “Honest Ads May Be By-Product Of Landmark Ruling.”

“A Less Discretionary Docket for the Supreme Court”: Guest bloggers Craig Lerner and Nelson Lund had this post yesterday at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“11th Circuit: ‘Sex Specific’ Profanity Could Win Harassment Case.” Alyson M. Palmer of the Fulton County Daily Report has this article about Wednesday’s en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

My earlier coverage of that ruling appears here.

“Judge Thomas Porteous not trustworthy, task force declares”: Today in The Times-Picayune of New Orleans, Bruce Alpert has an article that begins, “A House task force Thursday recommended that U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous be impeached because of a ‘long-standing pattern of corrupt conduct.’ The panel unanimously approved four articles of impeachment, which will be considered by the House Judiciary Committee in the next week or two.”

“Plain View for Computer Searches Generates Two Circuit Splits in Two Days: United States v. Williams and United States v. Mann.” Orin Kerr has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Detainees Will Still Be Held, but Not Tried, Official Says”: In today’s edition of The New York Times, Charlie Savage has an article that begins, “The Obama administration has decided to continue to imprison without trials nearly 50 detainees at the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba because a high-level task force has concluded that they are too difficult to prosecute but too dangerous to release, an administration official said on Thursday.”

The newspaper also contains an article headlined “Governors I. Terror Trial? Unlikely but Under Study” about where the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed may occur.

And today’s edition of The Washington Post contains a front page article headlined “Justice task force recommends about 50 Guantanamo detainees be held indefinitely.”