New posts at “The Confrontation Blog”: Yesterday afternoon and evening, law professor Richard D. Friedman added posts titled “G . . . VR in Briscoe” and “Cert petition on ‘Who must testify?’”

The latter of those two posts begins, “Sooner or later, the Supreme Court will have to resolve the question of who must testify to the substance of a lab test.”

“Supreme Court Left Donor Disclosure Rules Intact”: This audio segment appeared on Monday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

Today in The Washington Post, law professors Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres have an op-ed entitled “Despite court ruling, Congress can still limit campaign finance.”

And online at Slate, law professor Barry Friedman and Dahlia Lithwick have a jurisprudence essay entitled “Speeding Locomotive: Did the Roberts Court misjudge the public mood on campaign finance reform?” In addition, law professor Nathaniel Persily has a jurisprudence essay entitled “The Floodgates Were Already Open: What will the Supreme Court’s campaign finance ruling really change?”

“Gays have political power, Prop. 8 defense says”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

Today in The Los Angeles Times, Maura Dolan reports that “Prop. 8 trial focuses on gays’ political power; Kenneth P. Miller, a witness for opponents of same-sex marriage, is called to rebut arguments that gays need stronger legal protections.”

The Sacramento Bee contains a front page article headlined “Professor testifies at Prop. 8 trial that gays don’t lack clout.”

The New York Times reports that “Supporters of Gay Marriage Ban Start Case.”

Stu Woo of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Gay-Marriage Foes Make Their Case.”

The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Prop. 8 trial: defenders of gay-marriage ban make their case; In the federal trial on California’s Prop. 8, defenders of the voter ban on gay marriage called their first witnesses Monday; Defense lawyers argue that gays and lesbians in California enjoy plenty of political power and do not need extra constitutional protection.”

And law.com reports that “Proposition 8 Defense Seeks to Show Gays Have Power.”

“Supreme Court dismisses challenge to ruling on forensic experts; Defendants will still have the right to demand live testimony from lab technicians and other experts who prepare reports for the prosecution”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

Today in The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that “Court Refuses Noriega Case and Disposes of Another.”

And Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Court won’t block extradition of former Panamanian leader Noriega.”

“States Weigh Judicial Recusals; Some Judges, Businesses Oppose Restrictions on Cases Involving Campaign Contributors”: Nathan Koppel has this article today in The Wall Street Journal.

“Court OKs ‘John Doe’ warrants based only on DNA”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The California Supreme Court has authorized so-called ‘John Doe’ arrest warrants that contain only a DNA profile of an unknown suspect.”

You can access today’s 5-2 ruling of the Supreme Court of California at this link.

“Supreme Court won’t halt Noriega’s extradition to France”: Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

“NRA Will Argue in Second Amendment Case”: Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

Seventh Circuit rejects state prisoner’s challenge to a Wisconsin prison’s ban on the role-playing game Dungeons and Dragons: Hey, so long as prisons don’t ban Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, everything should be copacetic. You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link.

Update: Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook was on this three-judge panel, although he is not the author of the panel’s opinion. To hear what Chief Judge Easterbrook had to say about D&D during the oral argument, you can download the oral argument audio via this link (4.03MB mp3 audio file).

And in early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Wisconsin inmate loses Dungeons and Dragons fight.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News is reporting: He has articles headlined “New York City Tobacco Tax Suits Limited by Top Court” and “Chase May Get U.S. High Court Review in Credit-Card Rate Case.”

“Court seeks government view on Chase credit card case”: James Vicini of Reuters has this report.

And last Friday he had an article headlined “Corporate ruling no sign of U.S. high court direction.”

“After 34 Years, a Plainspoken Justice Gets Louder”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Briscoe v. Virginia Ends With a Whimper”: Orin Kerr has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

“Court stops NYC suit vs. online cigarette vendor”: The Associated Press has this report.

Is the term “adult oriented store” found in a Connecticut town’s zoning ordinance unconstitutionally vague as applied? In a ruling issued today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit answers “no” by a 2-1 vote.

Access online today’s Order List and opinions in argued cases from the U.S. Supreme Court: The Court today issued one signed opinion in an argued case and one per curiam opinion in an argued case.

You can access today’s Order List at this link. The Court today granted review in two cases but consolidated them for a total of one hour of oral argument. The Court also asked for the views of the Solicitor General in two cases. And Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent from the denial of certiorari in Noriega v. Pastrana, No. 09-35, in which Justice Antonin Scalia joined, can be accessed here.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in part in Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York, No. 08-969. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined the Chief Justice’s opinion in full. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined the Chief Justice’s opinion in part. Justice Ginsburg also issued an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony M. Kennedy joined. Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not take part in the decision. You can access the oral argument transcript at this link.

The Court today also issued a per curiam opinion in Briscoe v. Virginia, No. 07-11191. Oral argument of this case occurred just two weeks ago, and you can access the oral argument transcript at this link.

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “A Boumediene sequel bypassed.”

And in early news coverage, The Associated Press has reports headlined “Court won’t stop Noriega from being sent to France” and “High court clears way for Virginia execution.”

“Judge, Facing Impeachment, Mounts His Defense”: David Ingram has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“What Should Congress Do About Citizens United?” Law professor Laurence H. Tribe has this guest post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Prosecutors build case in slaying of abortion doc”: The Associated Press has this report.

The AP also has a report headlined “Abortion foes keep Kan. court fuss alive” that begins, “An anti-abortion group campaigning to unseat at least one Kansas Supreme Court justice also wants to change how new justices are selected.”

The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Abortion in spotlight with Roe v. Wade anniversary, Kansas trial; The trial of a man charged with killing an abortion doctor in Kansas opened Friday on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling on abortion rights; A precedent could be set if the defendant is allowed to argue he believed deadly force was needed to save the lives of unborn children.”

And The Yale Daily News reports that “Pro-life group struggles to find place on liberal campus.”

“Death row inmates stay indefinitely; No one has been executed in Pennsylvania since 1999”: This article appears today in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

“Democrats Seek to Counter Court Ruling on Political Spending”: Jess Bravin and Brody Mullins have this article today in The Wall Street Journal.

Today’s edition of The New York Times contains articles headlined “A Quest to End Spending Rules for Campaigns” and “Court Ruling Invites a Boom in Political Ads.”

The Arizona Republic reports that “Courts throw curve at Ariz. elections; Rulings could affect outcomes.”

And in The Washington Post, columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. has an op-ed entitled “Supreme Court ruling calls for a populist revolt.”

“Obama to skip jury duty in Bridgeview”: The Chicago Tribune has this report.

“An NFL apparel conspiracy? American Needle Inc. is suing the league after it lost a contract to make team-affiliated sportswear.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Plessy, Ferguson united”: The Topeka Capital-Journal has this news update.

“Public still waiting for ex-county judges’ court date”: Today’s edition of The Times Leader of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania contains an article that begins, “Laurene Transue is looking forward to the day when former Luzerne County judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan appear in court to face charges related to the juvenile justice scandal that ensnared her daughter and thousands of other youths.”

“ACLU May Reverse Course on Campaign Finance Limits After Supreme Court Ruling”: Joseph Goldstein has this article today at the web site of The New York Sun.

The Christian Science Monitor has reports headlined “‘Fighting’ Obama hits Supreme Court over campaign finance; The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling striking down a 2002 campaign finance reform law ‘strikes at democracy itself,’ Obama says in his weekly address; Republicans say ‘free speech’ — even in the form of money — strengthens democracy” and “Campaign finance ruling: Can Congress do anything? The Supreme Court’s campaign finance ruling was based on the US Constitution; This makes it particularly hard for Congress to do anything but modify campaign finance law — public disclosure provisions, for example.”

And the Week in Review section of today’s edition of The New York Times contains an article headlined “Does Corporate Money Lead to Political Corruption?”

“Pa. jurists’ focus: Fixing city courts; The state Supreme Court wants changes made and an accounting of why so many cases fail.” This front page article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

“No secession vote for Alaska, state Supreme Court rules; Consultant had sought to change the constitution”: Yesterday’s edition of The Anchorage Daily News contained an article that begins, “The Alaska Supreme Court has rejected an Anchorage man’s effort to change the Alaska Constitution so that he could call a vote for secession from the United States.”

You can access the recent ruling of the Supreme Court of Alaska at this link.

“U.S. Supreme Court: Showing the naughty bits at the airport?” Michael Kirkland of UPI has this report.

“A bold conservative step from Supreme Court; When justices last week ruled to strike down laws limiting corporate political spending, they signaled a tough road ahead for Democrats’ regulatory measures”: David G. Savage will have this article Sunday in The Los Angeles Times.

And in Sunday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Justice Kennedy was key to conservatives’ win in campaign finance decision.”

“Justices Turn Minor Movie Case Into a Blockbuster”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times. The newspaper also reports that “24 States’ Laws Open to Attack After Campaign Finance Ruling.”

Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal reports that “Risky Strategy Leads to Big High Court Win; Theodore Olson urged justices to throw out precedent on corporate campaign contributions.”

Today in The Wall Street Journal, Bradley A. Smith has an op-ed entitled “Newsflash: First Amendment Upheld; An end to giving political speech less protection than pornography.”

Online at Slate, David Kairys has a jurisprudence essay entitled “Money Isn’t Speech and Corporations Aren’t People: The misguided theories behind the Supreme Court’s ruling on campaign finance reform.”

And online at the First Amendment Center, David L. Hudson Jr. has a commentary entitled “Lone vote vs. campaign-ad disclosure: Thomas.”

“Activists see threat to Roe precedent”: Josh Gerstein has this article today at Politico.com.

“Prison waste is matter for court; Justices to rule if feces on floor equals assault”: This article appeared Thursday in The Concord (N.H.) Monitor.

“5-4 split is the rule in high court’s big cases”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

“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.”