“A Risky Proposal: Is it too soon to petition the Supreme Court on gay marriage?” Margaret Talbot will have this lengthy article in the January 18, 2010 issue of The New Yorker.

Majority on divided three-judge First Circuit panel upholds the constitutionality of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which allows for the civil commitment of a sexually dangerous person already in federal custody after expiration of his criminal sentence: You can access today’s ruling at this link.

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted review in one new case today: You can access the order granting review at this link.

Additional information about the case is available in this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Court Revives Suit Against Reno Police Over Detainee Suicide”: In late July 2009, the Metropolitan News-Enterprise had this report on a ruling that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had issued.

Today, the Ninth Circuit issued an order from which seven judges dissented denying rehearing en banc in the case. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski‘s dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc begins:

Until this opinion came along, police officers weren’t required to serve as babysitters, psychiatrists or social workers, and judges didn’t run suicide-prevention programs. Responsibility for preventing suicide rested with the individual and the family, not the state. But the panel has discovered that the Constitution demands a change in job description: Judges will henceforth micromanage the police, who in turn will serve as mental health professionals. The panel’s reasoning has no stopping point, and our decision to let it stand threatens unprecedented judicial intervention in our local institutions.

Chief Judge Kozinski’s real-life good friend Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt was the author of the original three-judge panel opinion. Any further review of the case will now have to come, if at all, from the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Ten years as top judge and she’s still losing sleep; Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, talks with The Globe and Mail about her work so far, the toll it takes on her conscience and the makeup of Canada’s highest bench”: Kirk Makin had this article yesterday in The Toronto Globe and Mail.

“Comcast, FCC take net neutrality dispute to court”: The Associated Press has this report on a case argued today before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Mike Scarcella has a post titled “Appeals Court Warm to Comcast in Fight Against FCC.”

Update: At Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog, David Kravets has a post titled “Court to FCC: You Don’t Have Power to Enforce Net Neutrality.”

Today’s appellate math lesson — A three-judge Second Circuit panel reports that it is “evenly divided” on whether federal magistrate judges have authority to impose Rule 11 sanctions: Apparently the vote was one judge says “yes,” a second judge says “no,” while the third judge says “I don’t know” and “I respectfully suggest that this knot needs to be untied by Congress or by the Supreme Court.”

You can access today’s ruling, which leaves that question unresolved, at this link. Each of the three judges on the panel writes separately on this issue following a short majority opinion that resolves the appeal on an alternate ground.

“President Is Said to Decide to Renominate Six Choices”: In today’s edition of The New York Times, Charlie Savage has an article that begins, “President Obama will renominate Dawn Johnsen to lead the Justice Department’s powerful Office of Legal Counsel, along with his choices for five other jobs that the Senate did not act on last year, a White House official said Thursday.”

“Judith Colenback Savage 1 of 5 nominees for R.I. Supreme Court”: The Providence Journal contains this article today.

“Deadly gunbattle: Court security to be studied; Parraguirre orders reviews statewide.” This article appears today in The Las Vegas Review-Journal. In addition, columnist John L. Smith has an essay headlined “Victim of courthouse shooting remembered: ‘He will be missed.’”

The Las Vegas Sun reports today that “Nevada to study courthouse safety in wake of shooting.”

And The Reno Gazette-Journal reports that “Review ordered for Nevada court security.”

“Saints’ quarterback Drew Brees weighs in on NFL’s Supreme Court case”: Drew Brees will have this op-ed in Sunday’s edition of The Washington Post.

“Relationship Getting Serious? You Can Keep It to Yourself, Appeals Court Tells Defendant.” law.com has this report.

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Second Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Koke’e cabin case appealed to U.S. Supreme Court”: This article appears today in The Garden Island of Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii.

“No more room at the bench: The American Bar Assn. allows unneeded new law schools to open and refuses to regulate them; The government should consider taking steps to stop the flow of attorneys into a saturated marketplace.” Mark Greenbaum has this op-ed today in The Los Angeles Times.

“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.

“Prop. 8 trial will be shown on YouTube”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update that begins, ”
Next week’s trial in San Francisco of a lawsuit challenging the initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California won’t be televised live, but it will be videotaped for delayed Internet release on YouTube, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.”

And Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News has an update headlined “Judge approves delayed YouTube video of trial in Prop. 8 challenge.”

“Calif. court hears Hare Krishna donations case”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A decades-long dispute between Hare Krishnas and the Los Angeles International Airport over soliciting donations appears to be nearing a resolution, as the California Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday over whether the airport is a public place.”

“State will appeal prison-voting ruling to Supreme Court”: The Seattle Times has a news update that begins, “Washington state will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn a surprising federal court ruling that tossed out the state’s 120-year-old prohibition against voting by incarcerated felons, Attorney General Rob McKenna said today.”

And SeattlePI.com has a report headlined “Prison voting headed to U.S. Supreme Court? State leaders say yes; AG McKenna says he’ll argue the case himself if the high court accepts.”

“Nationwide courthouse security review”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Gay-marriage foes slam plans to televise Prop 8 trial; Witnesses harassment feared”: This article appears today in The Washington Times.