“State could reshape abortion policy”: Today’s edition of The Omaha World-Herald contains an article that begins, “Nebraska could reshape national abortion policy if lawmakers embrace a proposal to ban almost all abortions after a fetus reaches 20 weeks. The state has played a role on the national stage before, with a 1997 law banning the controversial late-term procedure known medically as intact dilation and extraction, or D&X.”

“Plaintiff in handgun case is suing D.C. for right carry firearms in public”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

At at the “Hit & Run” blog of Reason, Damon W. Root has a post titled “Does Justice Scalia Think the Second Amendment Applies Only to the Federal Government?”

“U.S. Supreme Court to hear terrorism case”: UPI has this report.

“Justice Department decision on terror memos sparks legal debate”: Carrie Johnson will have this article Sunday in The Washington Post.

The New York Times reports today that “Report Faults 2 Authors of Bush Terror Memos.”

The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Waterboarding memo authors committed no misconduct, report says; An internal Justice Department finding says the two Bush administration lawyers used ‘poor judgment’ in authorizing harsh tactics on terrorism suspects, but it does not call for punishment.”

In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “Lawyers Cleared Over 9/11 Memos.”

The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “‘Torture memos’ authors: Rebuked but won’t be disbarred; Bush administration lawyers who wrote the so-called ‘torture memos’ exercised ‘poor judgment’ in writing legal opinions that ‘contained significant flaws,’ according to the Justice Department; But they weren’t guilty of professional misconduct that might have meant disbarment.”

law.com reports that “Bybee, Yoo Got a Boost From Their Lawyers in Avoiding Ethics Charges.”

The “Main Justice” blog has a post titled “How Bybee Turned Liberal Critics’ Writings To His Advantage.”

And at National Review Online’s “The Corner,” Andy McCarthy has a post titled “Attorney General Mukasey and Deputy Attorney General Filip Shredded OPR’s Misconduct Allegations Against Bush Lawyers” summarizing this letter.

“Aging Supreme Court poised for change; With 7 out of 9 judges eligible to retire, Harper could have an historic opportunity to appoint a majority of the court”: Today’s edition of The Ottawa Citizen contains an article that begins, “Prime Minister Stephen Harper is positioned to do something U.S. President Barack Obama can only dream of — remake his nation’s Supreme Court more to his liking.”

“Supreme Court to consider another case on racial bias in hiring; Chicago firefighters say they were illegally discriminated against through test scores; A lawyer calls it the flip side to last year’s case involving white firefighters in New Haven, Conn.” David G. Savage will have this article Sunday in The Los Angeles Times.

“Chief justice says initiatives paralyze state”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “California Chief Justice Ronald George escalated his criticism of the state’s initiative process Friday, saying unrestrained ballot-box lawmaking is paralyzing government.”

“Louisville man charged with threatening to kill president in poem”: The Louisville Courier-Journal today contains an article that begins, “Testing the limits of the First Amendment, federal prosecutors have charged a Louisville man with threatening to kill the president based on a poem he wrote and recently re-posted on a neo-Nazi Web site.”

“Bainbridge attorney to run against Justice Sanders”: Today’s edition of The Seattle Times contains an article that begins, “Bainbridge Island attorney Charlie Wiggins plans to seek the Washington state Supreme Court seat of Justice Richard Sanders, perhaps the most visible member of the court because of his penchant for making headlines.”

“States, Congress wrestle with judicial bias rules”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Does Justice Thomas’ Silence Thwart Advocacy? It’s been four years since Clarence Thomas asked a question — some say that’s too long.” Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal has this report.

“Bush lawyers who approved waterboarding to face no discipline”: Carrie Johnson of The Washington Post has this news update.

Marisa Taylor of McClatchy Newspapers reports that “Justice Department clears Bush lawyers for ‘torture memos.’”

The Associated Press has a report headlined “DOJ: No misconduct for Bush interrogation lawyers.”

Reuters reports that “Bush lawyers criticized on interrogation advice.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Punishment Rejected for Interrogation Memo Authors.”

CNN.com reports that “Report clears Bush officials of misconduct over ‘torture’ memos.”

At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Mike Scarcella has a post titled “No Ethics Charges in DOJ Investigation of Bybee, Yoo.”

And at Salon.com’s “War Room” blog, Alex Koppelman has a post titled “DOJ bails out torture memo authors Yoo, Bybee; Justice official overruled recommendation that Bush lawyers face disciplinary action.”

The report was made public today via this web page of the House Judiciary Committee.

“Both sides take tobacco fight to Supreme Court”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Tobacco Companies, U.S. Seek Supreme Court Hearing.”

Reuters reports that “U.S., Altria appeal tobacco ruling to top court.”

Dow Jones Newswires report that “U.S. Appeals Landmark Tobacco Ruling to Supreme Court.”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “U.S. seeks $280 billion tobacco remedy; New appeals on RICO.”

At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “Tobacco Briefs Descend on Supreme Court.”

And earlier, in related news, today’s edition of The New York Times contains an article headlined “Coded to Obey Law, Lights Become Marlboro Gold.”

“Avoiding Confrontation”: At SSRN, Mark Egerman has posted an article whose abstract begins, “This article takes seriously Justice Scalia’s facetious aside in Giles v. California and examines whether there should be a separate confrontation doctrine for domestic violence cases.” (Via “Legal Theory Blog“).

“Local Gun-Control Laws Come Into Sights of U.S. Supreme Court”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Philip Morris takes tobacco fight to Supreme Court”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Sex-change surgery and universal grammar”: Neal Goldfarb has this guest post at “Language Log.”

My earlier coverage of the tax court’s ruling appears at this link.

“Louisiana must issue birth certificate to men who adopted baby boy, federal court rules”: This article appears today in The Times-Picayune of New Orleans.

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: La. must put 2 adoptive fathers on document.”

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

“Supreme Court Justice Barack Obama?” Law professor Jeffrey Rosen will have this op-ed in Sunday’s edition of The Washington Post.

“[This is] the only case I know of, in any jurisdiction covered by the Fourth Amendment, where invasion of the home has been approved based on no showing whatsoever. Nada. Gar nichts. Rien du tout. Bupkes.” So writes Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, dissenting today from the Ninth Circuit‘s denial of rehearing en banc in a case. In something of a surprise, only one other judge on that court has joined in Chief Judge Kozinski’s dissent. Of course, that doesn’t mean no other judges voted in favor of granting rehearing en banc.

The original three-judge panel Ninth Circuit ruling in the case, which will not be reheard en banc, can be accessed here.

At the “Last Blog on Earth” of San Diego CityBeat, Dave Maass has a post titled “Appellate judge slams his colleagues, suggests SD police lied in warrantless search case.”

“Handgun Case Creates Odd Alliances; Conservative and Liberal Groups Join in Urging the Supreme Court to Strike Down Two Illinois Gun Bans Next Month”: Jess Bravin will have this article Friday in The Wall Street Journal.

“Ignore Expiration Dates: ‘Best by,’ ‘Sell by,’ and all those other labels mean very little.” Nadia Arumugam has this essay online at Slate.

Therein, she mentions a ruling that Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner issued last March. My earlier coverage of that ruling appears at this link.

Programming note: I’ll be in U.S. District Court this afternoon in connection with post-judgment motions that I have worked on in a case that is likely heading for appeal. Additional posts will appear here later today.

“Free Speech Takes Stage at High Court”: In today’s edition of The Daily Journal of California, Lawrence Hurley has an article that begins, “It could be a good year for freedom of speech at the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“Prosecutors press on with obstruction case in Wone killing”: Yesterday’s edition of The Washington Post contained an article that begins, “Federal prosecutors investigating the slaying of prominent Washington attorney Robert Wone said in a court filing that they were confident the three men charged with obstruction in the case know who killed Wone in 2006 and that they plan to introduce previous crimes associated with the men to bolster their case.”

And on Tuesday at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Mike Scarcella had a post titled “Prosecutors Outline Evidence, Murder Theory in Wone Case.”

“Minnesota campaign law faces test; Citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the Chamber of Commerce sued to end a ban on corporate giving”: This article appears today in The Minneapolis Star Tribune.

The St. Paul Pioneer Press reports today that “Businesses sue over campaign decision; Chamber of Commerce seeks clarification of corporation rights.”

And in related news, The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that “Campaign financing limits in S.D. axed; Cap on PAC donations among 3 laws tossed.”

“Police push for warrantless searches of cell phones”: Declan McCullagh has this report at CNET News.

“Small Illinois town willing to be next Guantanamo; President Obama wants to ship Guantanamo Bay detainees to a rural Illinois state prison; Why are locals welcoming the detainees?” The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

“Effort to remove judge resumes; Prosecutors object to report that says Keller broke no law”: Chuck Lindell has this article today in The Austin American-Statesman.

The San Antonio Express-News reports today that “Discipline sought against Keller.”

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “Prosecutors: death row judge deserves punishment.”

The objections to the Special Master’s Findings of Facts can be accessed here and here. My earlier coverage of those findings appears at this link.

“1937, 2010”: Online at The New Republic, Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner has this review of Jeff Shesol’s new book, “Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court.”

“Hear the Uighurs: The critical Guantanamo case the Supreme Court should not duck.” Rebecca Crootof and law professor Oona A. Hathaway have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Activist’s case will test U.S. anti-terrorism law; USC professor Ralph Fertig says he’s protected under the 1st Amendment for advocating for the Kurdish minority in Turkey, whose political party has been designated a terrorist group by the U.S.” David G. Savage will have this article Thursday in The Los Angeles Times.

“Judge Puts Liberal Imprint on New York’s Top Court”: This article will appear Thursday in The New York Times.

“Were this case simply about an innocent game of canasta, I would readily join the opinion of my majority colleagues outright.” So begins the dissenting opinion that Tenth Circuit Judge Carlos F. Lucero issued today. The dissent continues, “However, the abrupt departure of the trial judge from the bench while defense counsel was discussing the testimony of defendant’s star witness, when coupled with the court’s earlier admonitions to the jury that the same witness’s testimony was ‘absolutely untrue’ and a ‘falsity,’ can only be interpreted as a clear message to the jury that the witness was not credible or worthy of the court and jury’s unbiased consideration.”

According to the majority opinion, the trial judge left the bench during defense counsel’s closing argument to the jury in this federal criminal case because it was “his secretary’s afternoon to play canasta and he had to get a couple of letters out.”

“Roberts versus Roberts: Just how radical is the chief justice?” Law professor Jeffrey Rosen has this article online at The New Republic.