“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.”

Citizens United A.V. Club: On this evening’s broadcast of the CBS Evening News, Jan Crawford had this video report.

This evening’s broadcast of the PBS show “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer” contained video segments entitled “High Court Reverses Campaign Spending Limits” and “Implications of Supreme Court Ruling.”

This evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained audio segments entitled “Supreme Court Eases Campaign Finance Curbs” (featuring Nina Totenberg); “Lawmakers Weigh Ruling On Campaign Finance“; and “Opposing Views Of Campaign Finance Decision.”

Today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Talk of the Nation” contained an audio segment entitled “Supreme Court Lifts Campaign Spending Limits” featuring David G. Savage.

And C-SPAN has posted this video of reactions to today’s ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court‘s plaza.

Lyle Denniston of “SCOTUSblog” is reporting: He has posts titled “The personhood of corporations” and “A new law to offset Citizens United? The President calls for action.”

In Bashman news from Australia: Northern Territory News of Darwin, Australia reports today that “30 thugs bash man in street.”

“Courts Write Own Rules On Detainees, Study Says”: This audio segment will appear on Friday’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“The Pinocchio Project: Watching as the Supreme Court turns a corporation into a real live boy.” Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

“Calif. high court strikes down medical pot limits”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A unanimous California Supreme Court has struck down a law that sought to impose limits on the amount of marijuana a medical patient can legally possess.”

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

“What Will Citizens United Do to the 2010 Election Cycle?” Ashby Jones has this post at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog.”

And the “Room for Debate” blog of The New York Times is examining “How Corporate Money Will Reshape Politics.”

“Obama Resubmits Three DOJ Nominees to U.S. Senate”: Mike Scarcella has this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Obama blasts Court decision on campaign finance”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

“House panel recommends impeaching Louisiana judge”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A House task force has recommended that Congress impeach a federal judge from Louisiana for misconduct that lawmakers say goes back decades. The panel voted unanimously Thursday to proceed with four articles of impeachment against U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous.”

And yesterday evening, Bruce Alpert of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans had a report headlined “Judge Thomas Porteous impeachment case on agenda for a preliminary vote.”

In coverage of today’s Citizens United ruling from Jan Crawford of CBS News at her “Crossroads” blog: Jan has posts titled “Supreme Court Ruling Will Cause Major Upheaval in Campaigns” and “Justice Stevens Stumbles.”

“Supreme Court rejects limits on corporate spending in electoral campaigns”: Robert Barnes and Dan Eggen of The Washington Post have this news update.

Joan Biskupic and Fredreka Schouten of USA Today have a news update headlined “Supreme Court rolls back campaign spending limits.”

The Washington Times has a news update headlined “Divided court strikes down campaign money restrictions.”

Today on the west coast broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “Supreme Court Rejects Campaign Spending Limits.”

Online at Slate, law professor Richard L. Hasen has a jurisprudence essay entitled “Money Grubbers: The Supreme Court kills campaign-finance reform.”

Moreover, at his “Election Law Blog,” Hasen has a post titled “Got You to Say ‘Bush v. Gore’!”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “A few open, or not so open, questions: The next campaign finance lawsuit?”

“Supreme Court Strikes Down Bans on Corporate Spending in Elections”: Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Supreme Court overturns ban on direct corporate spending on elections; In a 5-4 decision that strikes down a 1907 law, the justices say the 1st Amendment gives corporations, just like individuals, a right to spend their own money on political ads for federal candidates”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

And Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has a news update headlined “Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns.”

“Justices Block Key Part of Campaign Law”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

And Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers reports that “Supreme Court ends limits on corporate campaign spending.”

“Court decision opens new avenues for corporate political spending”: Politico.com has this report.

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Corporate Campaign Spending Backed by U.S. High Court.”

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits.”

And Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has announced its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, No. 08-205: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, in which the Chief Justice and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined in full. Justice Clarence Thomas joined all of the opinion of the Court except for part IV. Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor joined only part IV of the opinion of the Court.

In addition to the opinion of the Court, four other Justices wrote separately. The Chief Justice filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Alito joined. Justice Scalia filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Alito joined in full and Justice Thomas joined in part. Justice Stevens filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor joined. And Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

You can access the 183-page ruling at this link. This is the only decision that the Court is announcing today.

In early news coverage, Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Court rolls back campaign spending limits.”

Some resources pertaining to the U.S. Supreme Court‘s anticipated ruling, moments from now, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, No. 08-205: At 10 a.m. eastern time today, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue its long-awaited ruling in the Citizens United campaign finance case.

The case was first argued to the Supreme Court on March 24, 2009. You can access the transcript of that oral argument at this link. I collected news coverage of that oral argument in posts you can access here and here.

The Court then took the unusual step of listing the case for reargument and setting the reargument for September 9, 2009. You can access the transcript of the reargument at this link. I collected news coverage of the reargument in a post you can access here.

“Macon native Martin will be new 11th Circuit judge”: This article appears today in The Macon Telegraph.

“In a first test for court watchers, Sotomayor upholds death sentence”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post.