“Judge Chatigny Nominated To Seat On U.S. 2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals”: This article appears today in The Hartford Courant.

The nominee was embroiled in a death penalty-related controversy in 2005, as detailed in three earlier posts that you can access here, here, and here.

“Obama nominates Berkeley professor Goodwin Liu to federal appeals court”: In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Michael D. Shear has an article that begins, “President Obama on Wednesday nominated to the federal bench a California law professor who has criticized conservative legal theories and strongly opposed Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s nomination.”

In today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Obama nominates Berkeley prof to appeals court.”

And The Yale Daily News reports that “Eli tapped for appeals court.”

Don’t arrest the zombies: The Minneapolis Star Tribune has a news update headlined “Appeals court gives new life to local ‘zombie’ suit; The U.S. Court of Appeals on Wednesday released a ruling in favor of a group of zombies who say they were wrongfully arrested while protesting consumerism during the 2006 Aquatennial.”

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

“Before Justices, First Amendment and Aid to Terrorists”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Supreme Court weighs free speech against aid to terrorists.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court weighs anti-terrorism law, free-speech rights; The justices sound closely split over whether a USC professor illegally advised the Kurdistan Workers Party, listed as a foreign terrorist group.”

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Supreme Court seems split on dispute testing terror law.”

In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “Justices Wrestle With Terror Law.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Supreme Court: Peace activists challenge US antiterror law; The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday on whether an antiterror law violates the Constitution; The US solicitor general calls it ‘a vital weapon’; A lawyer for international peace activists argues it will send his clients to prison.”

And law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “Justices Seem Receptive to First Amendment Challenge to Anti-Terror Law; Apart from Scalia, support for the government’s position seemed weak.”

“2nd Circuit Denies En Banc Review of Lynne Stewart’s Sentence”: law.com has this report.

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s order appears at this link.

“3rd Circuit Weighs Validity of Fines in ‘Wardrobe Malfunction’ Case”: Shannon P. Duffy has this article today in The Legal Intelligencer.

My most recent earlier coverage appears at this link.

“Court Says Miranda Rights Don’t Bar Requestioning”: Adam Liptak will have this article Thursday in The New York Times.

In Thursday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Supreme Court rules that request for lawyer in questioning has expiration.”

In Thursday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage will have an article headlined “Supreme Court puts expiration date on ‘right to remain silent’; The justices rule that a suspect who invokes that protection can be questioned again after 14 days.”

Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Court says inmate’s lawyer request no longer valid.”

James Vicini of Reuters has an article headlined “Supreme Court: Police can question suspect after release.”

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. High Court Backs Police on Questioning Suspects.”

You can access today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Maryland v. Shatzer, No. 08-680, at this link.

“Obama Nominates Judge Chatigny For Second Circuit Seat”: The Hartford Courant has this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Judge in Connecticut nominated for appeals court.”

The official White House announcement can be accessed here.

“Obama nominates Cal professor to federal appeals court”: Josh Richman of The Oakland Tribune has a news update that begins, “President Barack Obama on Wednesday nominated University of California, Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law Associate Dean and Professor Goodwin Liu to a seat on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.”

Earlier, today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Obama zeros in on law professor for 9th Circuit post; UC Berkeley’s Goodwin Liu will be nominated to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, The Times has learned; Though he will face opposition from conservatives, he has admirers in that camp as well.”

“The Swamp” blog of The Chicago Tribune has a post titled “Obama judicial appointee: Alito critic.”

And Berkeley Law has issued news releases headlined “Berkeley Law’s Goodwin Liu Nominated to Ninth Circuit Court” and “President Obama Nominates Berkeley Law’s Goodwin Liu for U.S. Court of Appeals.”

The official White House announcement can be accessed here.

Programming note: On Wednesday, I’ll presenting an appellate oral argument to a three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania sitting in Harrisburg. Because the case I’m arguing is toward the end of the day’s oral argument list, and because Harrisburg is nearly two hours away, additional posts may not appear here until later in the day tomorrow.

“Court rules in favor of man in witness protection”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Mike Scarcella has a post titled “Appeals Court Sides with DOJ in Suit Against Protected Federal Witness.”

“NY appeals judges squabble over lawyer’s sentence”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Federal appeals judges in New York are bickering as they pressure a lower court judge to toughen the sentence of a lawyer convicted of terrorism charges. The judges decided not to have the entire federal appeals court in Manhattan hear the appeal of lawyer Lynne Stewart’s sentence of a little over two years in prison. But they took the unusual step of writing opinions critical of each other in announcing that decision Tuesday.”

You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the accompanying concurring and dissenting opinions, at this link.

Circuit Judge Rosemary S. Pooler issued an interesting concurring opinion in which she writes, with regard to judges who issue opinions concurring in or dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, that “the case is not before them, and what they may say about it has as much force of law as if those views were published in a letter to the editor of their favorite local newspaper.” Judge Pooler further observes, “By employing the simple tactic of calling for an en banc poll, active judges provide themselves with an opportunity to opine on a case that was never before them. This amounts to an exercise in free speech rather than an exercise of any judicial function.”

“7th Circuit: No Preemption for Failure-to-warn Claims Involving SSRI.” Thompson Publishing Group has a newsbrief that begins, “In one of the most important decisions on the issue of federal preemption of state law tort claims involving a pharmaceutical since the Supreme Court considered the issue in Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2009), a federal appeals court has held that failure-to-warn claims brought against the manufacturer of the antidepressant Paxil are not preempted.”

You can access today’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit at this link. Senior Circuit Judge Terence T. Evans wrote the opinion of the court.

The “Drug and Device Law” blog condemns the ruling in a post that you can access here.

“Yoo lashes out at Obama nominee”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “Former Bush administration lawyer John Yoo, fighting a suit by a prisoner who accuses him of approving unlawful detention and torture, is taking aim at his detractors, including President Obama’s nominee to head the office where Yoo once worked.”

WSJ.com’s “Law Blog” has posted the reply brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“CBS fights ’04 Jackson ‘wardrobe malfunction’ fine”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “After six years of legal wrangling and one Supreme Court review of Janet Jackson’s infamous Super Bowl ‘wardrobe malfunction,’ CBS argued anew Tuesday that it should not be held responsible for the half-second of nudity.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “CBS Faces New Challenge Over Janet Jackson Exposure.”

You can access the audio of today’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit via this link (36.0MB Windows Media audio file).

Today’s rulings in argued cases from the U.S. Supreme Court: Earlier today, while I was away from the blog, the Court issued two rulings in argued cases.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Hertz Corp. v. Friend, No. 08-1107. You can access the oral argument transcript at this link. The Associated Press reports that “Court says business HQ is where executives are.” And at “Althouse,” Ann has a post titled “Today, all 9 Justices embrace a clear rule over a more nuanced and litigation-breeding interpretation.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court in Florida v. Powell, No. 08-1175. You can access the oral argument transcript at this link. All of the Justices joined in the opinion of the Court, except for Justice John Paul Stevens, who issued a dissenting opinion, and Justice Breyer, who joined in Part II of both the majority and dissenting opinions. Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court OKs Florida Miranda rights warnings.” Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. High Court Backs Police on Questioning Suspects.” And Reuters reports that “Court upholds police warning of suspect rights.”

“Justices seek to weigh anti-terrorism law, free-speech rights; The Supreme Court justices sound closely split over whether a USC professor illegally advised the Kurdistan Workers Party, listed as a foreign terrorist group”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “High court weighs anti-terror material support law.”

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court considers terrorism support law.”

Justin Blum and Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News report that “Terror Support Law Considered by U.S. Supreme Court.”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Anti-terrorism case not an easy one.”

And earlier, on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg previewed the oral argument in an audio segment entitled “Does The Patriot Act Violate Free Speech?”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, No. 08-1498.

“Virginia Thomas Launching ‘Liberty Central’ Site”: Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“On October 4, 2010, Elena Kagan Will Ask Her First Question As A Supreme Court Justice, And Justice Ginsburg will look across the bench at her new colleague and smile”: Tom Goldstein has this lengthy post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Philadelphia Jury Awards $9.45 Million in Damages Over Prempro Drug; Award marks latest in string of jury verdicts in favor of plaintiffs in Philadelphia hormone replacement therapy cases”: Amaris Elliott-Engel will have this article in Tuesday’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer.

On Tuesday morning, I’ll be attending the closing argument of the case mentioned in the final paragraph of the article. As a result, additional posts will appear here on Tuesday afternoon.

“Courtroom Murder Shadows Chicago Gun Suit at Supreme Court; 1983 shooting of judge, lawyer led to gun ban now before the justices”: Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal has this report.

Jurisprudence essays available online at Slate: Law professor David Luban has an essay entitled “David Margolis Is Wrong: The Justice Department’s ethics investigation shouldn’t leave John Yoo and Jay Bybee home free.”

And Dahlia Lithwick has an essay entitled “Torture Bored: How we’ve erased the legal lines around torture and replaced them with nothing.”

“State to appeal gay adoption ruling”: The Times-Picayune of New Orleans has a news update that begins, “A top state lawyer has confirmed that Attorney General Buddy Caldwell almost certainly will appeal a federal appeals court order requiring that Louisiana issue an amended birth certificate listing as parents two out-of-state men who, through a New York court, adopted a child born in Shreveport.”

“Pfizer Must Pay $9.45 Million in Damages Over Prempro”: Bloomberg News has this report.

“Pimco Rejected by Court on Market-Manipulation Suit”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has a report that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Pacific Investment Management Co., clearing the way for a lawsuit seeking more than $600 million for the company’s alleged manipulation of the price of Treasury futures contracts on the Chicago Board of Trade.”

And James Vicini of Reuters reports that “US top court won’t hear Pimco market squeeze case; Lawsuit seeks more than $600 million in damages.”

“Questions Of an Affair Tainting A Fair Trial”: In Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times, Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column.

“Big tobacco wields First Amendment argument”: Tony Mauro has this news analysis online at the First Amendment Center.

“Court to decide if firefighter suit moves forward”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The Supreme Court seems willing to let a group of African American applicants sue the city of Chicago for discrimination for using test scores to decide who would become a firefighter trainee.”

And at the web site of The Chicago Tribune, David G. Savage has a report that begins, “U.S. Supreme Court justices today appeared ready to rule that Chicago violated the civil rights of aspiring black firefighters by using a hiring test in the late 1990s that screened out most blacks, potentially forcing the city to pay millions of dollars in damages.”

Update: You can access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Lewis v. City of Chicago, No. 08-974, at this link.

Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: The Court has posted its Order List online at this link.

The Court today granted review in two cases and called for the views of the Solicitor General in two other cases.

In addition, the Court issued two per curiam decisions, in Wilkins v. Gaddy, No. 08-10914, and in Thaler v. Haynes, No. 09-273.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: No new trial in Texas police officer death.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Clarifying jury selection.”

“Next major First Amendment test: Humanitarian Law Project cases.” Lyle Denniston has this oral argument preview at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Disabled girl’s family fights order to leave; Judge will rule on whether Immigration officials misled French entrepreneur who moved his family to Montreal”: Today’s edition of The Toronto Globe and Mail contains an article that begins, “The Barlagne family came from France wooed by Canada’s promise of an entrepreneurial environment and the reassurance their handicapped toddler was welcome. Five years later, the business end of the family venture has worked out, but the Canadian government wants the disabled girl out of the country, for fear her cerebral palsy will be an ‘excessive burden’ on the state.”

“Mr. Smith goes to Washington, U.S. Supreme Court”: The Frederick (Md.) News-Post contains this article today.

“Senate Democrats Want To Rein In Filibusters”: Today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition” contained this audio segment.

“Vindicating John Yoo: Bush lawyers are found to have acted ethically, unlike their accusers.” This editorial appears today in The Wall Street Journal.

My most recent earlier coverage appears at this link.

“Supreme Court returns; firearms regulation and detainees on agenda.” Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this news update. And in today’s newspaper, Barnes has an article headlined “Justices consider case with familiar themes.”