“N.J. Supreme Court rules schools can search cars of students”: Mary Fuchs of The Newark Star-Ledger has this news update.

And The Atlantic City Press has a news update headlined “NJ Supreme Court ruling upholds EHT school official’s 2006 search of student’s car.”

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

“4 UF students will get to ask questions of Clarence Thomas”: The Gainesville Sun has a news update that begins, “U.S Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas will be answering questions from four University of Florida law students on Thursday.”

And the University of Florida Levin College of Law has issued a news release headlined “A conversation with Associate Justice Clarence Thomas — Marshall Criser Distinguished Lecture Series.” Some additional information can be accessed here.

“State court passes 1st test of bias rules”: This editorial appears today in The Detroit Free Press.

“Ex-judge Wiggins is first to file for Supreme Court”: The Olympian of Olympia, Washington has a post at “The Politics Blog” that begins, “Charles Wiggins is first to file papers to raise money for a state Supreme Court campaign this year. He is seeking the seat now held by libertarian Justice Richard Sanders, and apparently is making Sanders’ conduct an issue.”

And SeattlePI.com has a blog post titled “Charlie Wiggins runs for state Supreme Court.”

You can access the Charlie Wiggins for Justice web site at this link.

“Ignoring Supreme Court’s Khadr ruling, Ottawa won’t request repatriation; Because recommendations lack teeth, the Tories are on solid legal ground: experts.” Kirk Makin will have this article in Thursday’s edition of The Toronto Globe and Mail.

“Appeals court: New York City can limit billboards.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the city did not violate the First Amendment by limiting the number of billboards along its roadways and parks.”

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

“Justice Defends Ruling on Finance”: In Thursday’s edition of The New York Times, Adam Liptak will have an article that begins, “In expansive remarks at a law school in Florida, Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday vigorously defended the Supreme Court’s recent campaign finance decision.”

Ninth Circuit denies rehearing en banc of divided three-judge panel’s decision rejecting a Commerce Clause challenge to a federal law criminalizing the possession by a felon of body armor sold or offered for sale in interstate commerce: You can access at this link today’s order denying rehearing en banc along with a dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc in which four judges joined.

The original three-judge panel’s ruling issued in May 2009, and I had this coverage of the ruling on the day it issued.

“Briefer Briefs Ahead for Supreme Court”: Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Analysis: The terrifying right to remain silent.” Matt Apuzzo of The Associated Press has this news analysis.

“Appeals court: Prosecutor can’t be sued over 2003 terror trial.” Paul Egan of The Detroit News has this update.

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

“U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas speaks at Stetson University”: This article appears today in The St. Petersburg Times.

Last night, I collected additional coverage in this post.

“What Does Society Demand from a Chicken Sandwich?” The blog “Abnormal Use: An Unreasonably Dangerous Products Liability Blog” has this post on a recent non-precedential ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Earlier, “The VLW Blog” covered the ruling in a post titled “Fast-food products case revived.”

“Family’s case against CHP can go forward, appeals court rules; A woman’s family had sued citing invasion of privacy after two officers e-mailed graphic crash photos, but a lower court dismissed the case”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

Yesterday’s edition of The Orange County Register reported that “Catsouras family wins right to sue over death photos.”

Metropolitan News-Enterprise reported yesterday that “Court of Appeal Revives Privacy Suit Over Death Photos on Internet.”

And ABCNews.com reports that “Family Can Sue Calif. Highway Patrol for Letting Daughter’s Accident Photos Spread Online; Nicole Catsouras Died in Car Crash; Family Says Pain Compounded by Police Photos of Body.”

You can access Monday’s ruling of California’s Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, at this link.

“Child Pornography, and an Issue of Restitution”: John Schwartz has this article today in The New York Times.

Some recent earlier related posts can be accessed here and here.

“Prosecutor can’t be sued over 2003 terror trial”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A man whose 2003 conviction on terror-related charges in Detroit was thrown out can’t sue the prosecutor for misconduct. A federal appeals court reversed a lower court Wednesday and ruled in favor of Richard Convertino.”

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

“Senate goes back to the drawing board on campaign finance; A Senate committee on Tuesday discussed how to limit the US Supreme Court campaign-finance ruling that opened elections to corporate ads; One suggestion: a constitutional amendment.” Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

“Court: Ressam sentence ‘failed to protect public’; The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has harshly rebuked a Seattle-based federal judge for sentencing would-be millennium bomber”: The Seattle Times contains this article today.

Today in The Los Angeles Times, Carol J. Williams reports that “Would-be LAX terrorist’s prison sentence overturned as too lenient; A divided appeals panel rules that the 22-year sentence for an Al Qaeda operative didn’t follow guidelines; He had originally agreed to cooperate with authorities for a lighter sentence but reneged.”

John Schwartz of The New York Times reports that “Appeals Court Throws Out Sentence in Bombing Plot, Calling It Too Light.”

And James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Court sets aside ‘millennium bomber’ sentence.”

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

“Trial Lawyers Contribute, Shareholder Suits Follow”: This front page article appears today in The Wall Street Journal.

“Judge Slashes Punitives, Upholds Jury’s Finding in Hormone Replacement Therapy Case”: Amaris Elliott-Engel has this article today in The Legal Intelligencer.

And Bloomberg News reports that “Pfizer Wins 93% Cut in Prempro Punitive-Damages Award.”

You can access the recent ruling of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania at this link (via “The Am Law Litigation Daily“).