“Justice Dept. defends warrantless cell phone tracking”: Declan McCullagh of CNET News has this report.

My earlier coverage appears here.

“4th Circuit Vacates $10 million Punitive Damages Award in Discrimination Suit”: Mike Scarcella has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times” about a lengthy non-precedential ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in which each of the three judges on the panel wrote separately.

“Ten Commandments display will get high court review”: Today’s edition of The Oklahoman contains an article that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled next week to consider the case involving a Ten Commandments monument on Haskell County Courthouse property in Stigler, but the legal discussion got a head start Friday at the University of Oklahoma.”

“Why the ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is doomed”: David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey have this op-ed today in The Washington Post.

“State high court will review legality of ‘pole tax'”: The Houston Chronicle today contains an article that begins, “The Texas Supreme Court has decided to review the legality of charging a $5-per-person ‘pole tax’ to patrons of strip clubs and other adult entertainment venues, a case that has hinged on whether the government can tax content protected by the First Amendment.”

The Associated Press reports that “Texas Supreme Court will hear strip-club fee case.”

And at the “Austin Legal” blog of The Austin American-Statesman, Chuck Lindell has a blog post titled “Supreme Court to hear appeal on strip club ‘pole tax.’”

“Court hearing argues cell-phone privacy rights”: The Philadelphia Inquirer contains this article today.

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Orin Kerr has a post titled “Thoughts on the Oral Argument in the Third Circuit Cell-Site Records Case.”

You can access at this link (19.6MB Windows Media audio file) the recording of yesterday’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

“2008 habeas ruling may pose snag as U.S. weighs indefinite Guantanamo detentions”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

“Insiders: White House quietly preps for possible high court spot.” Bill Mears of CNN.com has this report.

Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal reports that “Talk Grows of 2 Openings at High Court; White House reportedly preparing for more Supreme Court exits.”

“Scope of Prescription Drug Tort Lawsuits to Be Tested; Appeals Ct. to Mull Negligent Marketing Cause of Action”: Amaris Elliott-Engel had this article, in which I am mentioned and an appellate brief I wrote is quoted, in yesterday’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.

“US govt appeals court ban on cell-phone tracking”: Reuters has this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “Justice Dept. wants phone locales without warrant.”

“Obama administration weighs choices for prosecuting 9/11 mastermind; Officials are considering ‘multiple options’ for trying Khalid Shaikh Mohammed following resistance to their proposal to hold a civilian trial for him in New York”: The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “Administration may abandon civilian 9/11 trial” that begins, “Attorney General Eric Holder is leaving open the possibility of trying professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed before a military commission instead of the civilian trial originally planned for New York City.”

“Gableman to remain on case before Supreme Court”: Today’s edition of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel contains an article that begins, “State Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman will remain on a criminal case after the six other justices couldn’t agree whether they have the power to remove him over comments that some argue show bias against criminal defendants. The decision — or, more accurately, non-decision — included five opinions that totaled 147 pages, some of them rancorous.”

You can access yesterday’s opinions of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin at this link.

“Where the U.S. went wrong on the Christmas Day bomber”: Michael B. Mukasey has this op-ed today in The Washington Post.

“Ohio Supreme Court Justice files re-election bid; Lanzinger seeks second term on Ohio Supreme Court”: This article appears today in The Toledo Blade.

And The Columbus Dispatch reports today that “Justice will seek court’s top post; GOP’s O’Connor has advantages in fall election.”

“Saved by the Swiss”: At the “Opinionator” blog of The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse has a post that begins, “Did President Obama have to promise to outfit the Swiss Navy to induce Switzerland to take two of the last Uighur detainees at Guantanamo Bay off our hands?”

“Reid nixes filibuster reform effort”: Paul Kane of The Washington Post has this blog post.

“Panel punts on DOJ nominee”: Politico.com has this report on the nomination of Dawn Johnsen.

“Democrats Try to Rebuild Campaign-Spending Barriers”: Friday’s edition of The New York Times will contain this article.

James Oliphant of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Congress pushes back against Supreme Court ruling on corporate spending; Legislators are proposing a bill to reinstate some limits on election contributions in advance of this year’s congressional primaries and general elections.”

In Friday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin and Brody Mullins will have an article headlined “New Rules Proposed On Campaign Donors.”

The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Democrats suggest ways to curb companies’ campaign spending.”

The Associated Press reports that “Top Democrats push back on campaign finance ruling.”

And Politico.com reports that “Dems try to blunt SCOTUS decision.”

“Obama will help select location of Khalid Sheik Mohammed terrorism trial”: This article will appear Friday in The Washington Post.

“Obscenity online: Do we need a national standard?” David L. Hudson Jr. has this essay online today at the First Amendment Center.

“Strip club prevails in court”: Today’s edition of The Omaha World-Herald contains an article that begins, “Live! Nude! Girls! can dance another day in Iowa, after a state Court of Appeals ruling Wednesday seen as a victory for strip clubs.”

The Muscatine Journal reports today that “Iowa court dismisses appeal over nude dancing.”

And The Des Moines Register contains an article headlined “Appeals court: Nude dancing still considered art.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Iowa Court of Appeals at this link.

“Man convicted of statutory rape may get new trial after DNA report”: This article appears today in The Kansas City Star.

And The Jefferson City News Tribune reports today that “New hearing ordered in statutory rape case; DNA test calls into question testimony of key witness.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Missouri at this link.

“Canada government seeks to avoid tobacco liability”: Reuters has a report that begins, “The Canadian government asked the Supreme Court this week to overturn British Columbia court rulings that could force it to share financial responsibility for damages caused by tobacco use.”

“11th Circuit Appears Split Over Deference in Sentencing; En banc panel hears appeal of case in which man was sentenced to 17 years after pleading guilty to recording his sexual abuse of children”: law.com has this report.

Fifth Circuit ruling underscores the perils of using a junked vehicle for artistic or political expression: An article headlined “The Sad Case of the Cactus Planter” appeared in the September 19, 2008 issue of The Austin Chronicle. The situation facing Ralph the Cactus Planter appears no happier today now that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has issued this ruling.

“Right to Free Speech Collides With Fight Against Terror”: Adam Liptak will have this article Thursday in The New York Times.

“Man who exposed himself may escape deportation”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this news update.

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “Court: Indecent exposure not always depraved.”

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

“US court: Nude dancing not ground for deportation.” Reuters has this report about today’s Ninth Circuit ruling that is the subject of the post immediately below.

Three-judge Ninth Circuit panel divides over whether the offense of indecent exposure is categorically a crime of moral turpitude under California law: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote the majority opinion, in which Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. joined, holding that the offense of indecent exposure is not categorically a crime of moral turpitude under California law. Circuit Judge Jay S. Bybee issued a lengthy dissenting opinion.

“Law School takes part in Court case; Supreme Court Litigation Clinic to represent petitioner in Abbott v. United States”: The Cavalier Daily, the student newspaper of the University of Virginia, has this front page article today.

“Ex-Supreme Court Justice O’Connor: Change way Mich. elects judges.” This article appears today in The Detroit News.

And The Detroit Free Press reports today that “O’Connor fears cash will flood judicial races.”

“Bygone days color justices’ arguments; Supreme Court members’ quips and questions recall a time before reality TV, YouTube and speed dating”: Joan Biskupic has this article today in the print edition of USA Today.

“W.Va. high court justices firm: No appeals court needed.” This article appears today in The Charleston Gazette.

And The Associated Press reports that “New appeals court unlikely for state.”

“Boy, 12, faces grown up murder charges”: Stephanie Chen has this report at CNN.com.

“Student support contract enforceable after divorce, says high court”: Today’s edition of The Salt Lake Tribune contains an article that begins, “Spouses who agree to take turns supporting each other through college could find themselves financially liable for breaking a contract if they divorce before both sides benefit.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Utah at this link.