“Supreme Court to hear Monsanto appeal”: This article appears today in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

“Tobacco Companies Said to Have Met With U.S. on Suit”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has a report that begins, “Tobacco company lawyers met with U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan last month to urge her not to file a Supreme Court appeal in the government’s racketeering case against the industry, an official involved in the Justice Department’s deliberations about the case said.”

Update: Pete Yost of The Associated Press has a report headlined “Tobacco’s plea — no big US payments.”

“YooTube: Why Jon Stewart failed to make John Yoo squirm.” Christopher Beam has this essay online at Slate.

“Public Enemies: How the Supreme Court managed to insult both the law and the public.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“D.C. Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss in Wone Case”: Mike Scarcella has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Court to Rule on Right to Privacy for Referendum Petition Signers”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Justices to hear case on disclosure of names on a petition.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “You sign a petition to curb gay rights. Should your name be public? The US Supreme Court has decided to hear a case about releasing to the public the names of people who signed a petition; The petition in question called for repealing Washington State’s law granting partnership rights to gay couples.”

The Seattle Times reports that “U.S. Supreme Court accepts Ref. 71 case; The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear the case surrounding the public release of names of voters who signed petitions for Referendum 71.”

SeattlePI.com reports that “U.S. Supreme Court will take R-71 case; Issue is disclosure of signatures in gay rights debate.”

And Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal reports that “Supreme Court Takes Up Case on Petition-Signer Privacy.”

“Something’s Fishy at the High Court”: Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal has this report.

And last Sunday’s edition of The Chicago Tribune contained an article headlined “Asian carp: Take that carp and fry it; River invader is more tasty morsel than maligned in some quarters.”

“SJC denies ex-priest Paul Shanley’s bid for new trial”: The Boston Herald has a news update that begins, “The state’s highest court today affirmed the 2005 conviction of pedophile priest Paul Shanley and along with it the introduction of so-called ‘repressed memory’ of victims in prosecuting cases of sexual abuse.”

The Boston Globe has a news update headlined “SJC upholds Shanley child abuse convictions.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Mass. court denies ex-priest’s bid for new trial.”

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

“Court to decide if petition signers’ names public”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has this report.

The AP is also reporting that “Court to rule on Monsanto alfalfa challenge.”

The Ninth Circuit takes away another case from the docket of U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real: See the final paragraph of the majority opinion in this ruling issued today. The dissenting judge, however, notes in the final paragraph of the final footnote of her dissent that she would not reassign the case to another district judge.

“Seeking Updates on United States v. Payton“: That’s the title of a post that Orin Kerr published at “The Volokh Conspiracy” on the evening of January 3, 2010. Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this order providing a definitive response to Orin’s inquiry.

“Federal court in Phila. weighs ‘teen sexting’ case”: The Philadelphia Inquirer has this news update.

And The Associated Press has an updated report headlined “US court on ‘sexting’: Child porn or child’s play?”

“The appellants, all of whom are federal judges who had entered into service before 1989, state that Congress’ repeated denials of the cost of living adjustments that had been legislated in 1989 are in violation of the Compensation Clause of Article III.” But today, the majority of active judges serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit joined in an order denying an initial en banc hearing in the case. Two dissenting opinions accompany that order.

Also today, by means of a separate order, a three-judge Federal Circuit panel has issued a decision summarily affirming the ruling of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against these judges-appellants.

This case has certainly had its ups and downs: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today issued its ruling in the case captioned Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Otis Elevator Co.

“Kansas judge in abortion case comes under scrutiny”: The Associated Press has this report.

Access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: The Court today has granted review in five new cases, according to this post at “SCOTUSblog.” And Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court to rule on petition-signers rights; Plea for confidentiality.”

“US court mulls ‘sexting’: Child porn or speech?” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court must decide whether ‘sexting’ by three Pennsylvania teens amounts to child pornography or is a free-speech right.”

Shannon P. Duffy of The Legal Intelligencer reports that “‘Sexting’ Case to Take Center Stage at 3rd Circuit.”

And Wednesday’s issue of The Times Leader of Wikles-Barre, Pennsylvania contained an article headlined “‘Sexting’ case to get day in court; Tunkhannock Area teens’ cell-phone image swapping is the focus of federal appeals court hearing on Friday.”

“Federal court revives Crowe civil suit; Families allowed to sue city, police, others over events following 1998 slaying of Stephanie Crowe”: This article appears today in The North County Times.

The San Diego Union-Tribune reports today that “Crowe family’s lawsuit revived.”

The Associated Press reports that “Lawsuit revived for wrongly accused SoCal teens.”

And law.com has a report headlined “9th Circuit: Police Can Be Sued for Coercive Interrogation of Teenage Murder Suspect.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“Same-sex marriage pays off, S.F. economist says”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

Today in The Los Angeles Times, Maura Dolan reports that “Bias raises gays’ risk of mental disorders, witness at Prop. 8 trial says; Professor says the same-sex marriage ban sent ‘the message that gay relationships are not respected, that they are of secondary value if they are of any value at all.’” In addition, law professor Barry Friedman has an op-ed entitled “Prop. 8, the trial that should be seen; It’s more than a legal case; it’s a morality play aimed at all of us, and we should get to hear it.”

Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “Experts again headline Proposition 8 trial.”

The Associated Press reports that “Gay marriage judge abandons Web broadcast attempt.”

And at the “Opinionator” blog of The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse has a post titled “Into the Closet.”

“9th Circuit Sympathetic to Privacy Act Suit Over Release of Pilot’s HIV Status”: law.com has this report.

“Justice Scalia’s Musical Interlude”: Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal has this report.

“Critics say plan to reform courts not enough”: The Charleston (W. Va.) Daily Mail contains this article today.

“In nation of exhibitionists, there’s still a demand for privacy”: Today in The Washington Post, columnist Michael Gerson has an op-ed that begins, “Just weeks after the Supreme Court took a landmark case featuring a demand for greater communication privacy, many took to Facebook to reveal the color of the bra they were wearing.”

“Appeals court reverses Grayson Ten Commandments decision”: The Lexington Herald-Leader contains this article today.

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

“Delaware to appeal sports betting limits; Washington firm to petition high court”: This article appears today in The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware.

And The Associated Press reports that “Delaware to appeal sports betting limits.”

“Court: Mass. law on wine shipping unconstitutional.” The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued today.

“High court’s broadcast ruling under microscope”: In Friday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article that begins, “It was a hastily written ruling by Supreme Court standards, and it carried a dissent almost equal in length to the majority’s opinion. But the 5 to 4 decision the court issued late Wednesday blocking the broadcast of a federal trial about the constitutionality of same-sex marriage is being scoured by legal analysts and activists for deeper meaning.”

“Blackout: The Supreme Court’s awful, heavy-handed decision to block videotaping of the gay marriage trial.” Emily Bazelon has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Mo. court hears challenge to malpractice limits”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Law School Case Gets Supreme Court Star Power”: Marcia Coyle has this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Causation is an important issue in many cases in a variety of fields of law and has been so for centuries. Yet it continues to confuse lawyers, in part because of a proliferation of unhelpful terminology (for which we judges must accept a good deal of the blame).” So writes Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner in an interesting decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued today.

Coincidentally, the issue of “proximate cause” is very much on my mind today, as that’s the central issue in the appeal in which I’m filing the Reply Brief for Appellant today in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

“Campaign finance activists on pins and needles awaiting Supreme Court ruling”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“Appeals court reverses Ten Commandments decision”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A split federal appeals court has ruled that a Kentucky county can restore its ‘Foundations of American Law and Government’ display that includes the Ten Commandments.”

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

“They Are So Not Ready for Some Football: The Supreme Court justices prove they know nothing whatsoever about the NFL.” Josh Levin and Dahlia Lithwick have this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

“Court to revisit ruling on Adelphia’s Rigases; Third Circuit to rehear ruling favoring Rigases; Defense says double jeopardy bars new conspiracy charge; John Rigas, Timothy Rigas already in prison”: Reuters has this report on an order granting a limited rehearing en banc that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued today.

My earlier coverage of the three-judge panel’s earlier ruling can be accessed here.