“State Supreme Court refuses to reconsider Massey-Harman case”: The Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette has this news update.

“Court clears reciting of Pledge of Allegiance at Western schools”: Bill Mears of CNN.com has this report.

“State high court to consider body-armor law”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “The California Supreme Court said Wednesday that it will hear a prosecution appeal of a ruling throwing out a state law that bans anyone who has been convicted of a violent felony from owning body armor.”

And Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that “S.C. to Review Ruling Overturning Body Armor Ban for Felons.”

“Federal court: State has right to ban brothel advertising.” The Las Vegas Sun has this news update.

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

“Minnesota’s chief justice to leave the bench; Two years after his appointment, Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric Magnuson announced he will leave the court effective June 30”: The Minneapolis Star Tribune has this news update.

And the Minnesota Judicial Branch today issued a news release headlined “Chief Justice Eric J. Magnuson to Leave High Court.” You can access the official online biography of Chief Justice Eric J. Magnuson at this link.

“Court upholds ‘under God’ in Pledge of Allegiance”: The Associated Press has this report.

And Bloomberg News reports that “Pledge of Allegiance in Schools Ruled Constitutional.”

My earlier coverage of today’s Ninth Circuit rulings (here and here) can be accessed at this link.

“Federal Circuit Court Nominee Gains Support”: Mike Scarcella has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

Three-judge Ninth Circuit panel rejects First Amendment challenge to Nevada’s restrictions on advertising by legal brothels: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“We are called upon to decide whether the teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, by students in public schools constitutes an establishment of religion prohibited by the United States Constitution. We hold it does not; the Pledge is constitutional.” Demonstrating the difference that a new three-judge panel can have, today the majority on a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — in a 193-page ruling — has rejected Dr. Michael Newdow’s renewed challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Circuit Judge Carlos T. Bea wrote the majority opinion, in which Senior Circuit Judge Dorothy W. Nelson joined. Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who joined in the Ninth Circuit’s original ruling in 2002 declaring the Pledge unconstitutional, issued a dissenting opinion. The majority opinion is 60 pages long, and the dissenting opinion is 133 pages long.

Also worthy of note — in a separate decision issued today, the same three-judge panel unanimously (although not without criticism from Judge Reinhardt in his separate opinion concurring only in the result) rejects Newdow’s challenge to the use of the Nation’s motto, “In God we Trust,” on United States coins and currency.

In early news coverage, Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News has an update headlined “Appeals court rejects challenge to Pledge of Allegiance in schools.”

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update headlined “Court: ‘Under God’ in Pledge is constitutional.”

And Carol J. Williams of The Los Angeles Times has a blog post titled “Divided appeals court rules Pledge of Allegiance doesn’t violate Constitution.”

“Supreme Court Justices Reveal Their Secret Fast-Food Preferences”: Jess Bravin has this post at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog.”

“Judge Thomas Porteous impeached by U.S. House of Representatives”: Bruce Alpert of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans has this news update.

Update: At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” David Ingram has a post titled “Charging Corruption, House Impeaches Louisiana Judge.”

“Corporate $peech Good, Presidential Speech ‘Very Troubling.'” Law professor James Sample has this commentary at “The Huffington Post.”

“Author assumes guise of 10-year-old to punk famous”: The Associated Press has this report, which notes, among other things, that “Supreme Court justices weighed in on their favorite junk food.”

My earlier coverage of the book can be accessed here.

“Why the Supreme Court Issues Plurality Opinions”: Law professor David R. Stras and professor James F. Spriggs II have posted this paper online at SSRN (via “Legal Theory Blog“).

“White House Rolls Out Two More Circuit Nominees”: David Ingram and Mike Scarcella have this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

Yesterday, the White Houst issued a news release headlined “President Obama Nominates Raymond Lohier, Jr. for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Judge Kate O’Malley for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.”

Last week, law.com previewed the Federal Circuit nomination in an article headlined “Ohio District Court Judge the Front-Runner for Federal Circuit Seat, Say Sources; There has been a movement in the patent bar to nominate a down-in-the-trenches district court judge to the Federal Circuit, which has suffered from an Ivory Tower reputation.”

“It’s Obama vs. the Supreme Court, Round 2, over campaign finance ruling”: Robert Barnes and Anne E. Kornblut have this article today in The Washington Post.

Today in The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “Reid Remarks Intensify Spat With High-Court Conservatives.” You can access the full text of the article via Google News.

Linda Feldmann of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Chief Justice John Roberts and Obama White House: a tit for tat; Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday, in response to an audience question, he was troubled that President Obama used the occasion of his State of the Union address to criticize a Supreme Court ruling; The Obama White House, in turn, reiterated its objection to the court’s decision.”

The Washington Times reports that “Chief justice reignites feud with Obama; Counters State of Union jab.”

Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Chief justice chides State of the Union as ‘political pep rally.’”

Yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Roberts Slams ‘Pep Rally’ Scene At State Of Union” featuring Nina Totenberg.

Online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a jurisprudence essay entitled “Et Tu, SOTU? John Roberts’ nonpartisan attack on presidential partisanship.”

At her “Crossroads” blog, CBS News correspondent Jan Crawford has a post titled “White House Vs. Supreme Court: It’s Getting Ridiculous.”

And The Tuscaloosa News has an editorial entitled “Roberts has right quality for chief justice job.”

C-SPAN has posted at this link the video of the Chief Justice’s remarks at University of Alabama School of Law in delivering the spring 2010 Albritton Lecture, and in the question-and-answer session that followed.

“A Second Mistrial for Blogger Charged With Threatening Judges; Lead prosecutor calls third trial ‘highly likely’; bail conditions remain in place for Turner, who has announced his intent to fire his attorneys”: law.com has a report that begins, “The second trial of blogger Harold ‘Hal’ Turner, the New Jersey white supremacist charged with threatening to kill three Chicago federal judges, has resulted in a second mistrial.”

And The Associated Press reports that “2nd mistrial declared in case against NJ blogger.”

“Appeals court hears arguments on forest roads rule”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Spouses have bathroom privacy rights, Minnesota appeals court says; Princeton man had no right to secretly videotape his wife”: This article appears today in The Pioneer Press of St. Paul, Minnesota.

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

Articles of interest available online from SSRN: Law professor Ross E. Davies has posted an article titled “The Last Word” that will appear in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process (via “Legal Theory Blog“).

G. Mitu Gulati, David Klein, and David F. Levi have posted an article titled “Evaluating Judges and Judicial Institutions: Reorienting the Perspective” (via “Legal Theory Blog“).

And David L. Noll has posted an article titled “The Indeterminacy of Iqbal” (via “Legal Theory Blog“).

In federal court, must the party seeking a preliminary injunction establish a likelihood of success on the merits, or will it suffice to demonstrate a serious question going to the merits to make them a fair ground for trial, with a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in plaintiff’s favor? In a ruling issued today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejects the argument that recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent requires the party seeking a preliminary injunction to establish a likelihood of success on the merits.

“This case requires us to resolve an interesting and surprisingly unanswered question of First Amendment law: whether the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance should only be evaluated with regard to the ‘alternative avenues of communication’ it leaves open at the time it is passed, or also those it leaves open at the time it is challenged.” So begins the adult entertainment zoning decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.

Senior Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi issued the opinion on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel.

“SJC upholds trigger locks in Massachusetts”: The Boston Globe has a news update that begins, “In a victory for law enforcement and gun control advocates, the state’s high court today said state law requiring gun owners to use trigger locks on their weapons inside their homes passes constitutional muster.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Mass. court upholds state gun-lock requirement.”

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

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. reports the retirement from teaching of the law professor who reported Chief Justice Roberts’s retirement last week: You can hear that just after the one-hour mark in the podcast (54.0MB mp3 audio file) of the Chief Justice’s remarks yesterday at the University of Alabama School of Law in the question-and-answer session that followed the spring 2010 Albritton Lecture.

Earlier in that question-and-answer session, the Chief Justice explained the unsuccessful “eat a donut” approach he employed one year in selecting judicial law clerks.

“Attacks on Detainee Lawyers Split Conservatives”: John Schwarts has this article today in The New York Times.

“Roberts chides Senate, Obama”: Today’s edition of The Tuscaloosa News contains an article that begins, “United States Chief Justice John Roberts was harshly critical of the U.S. Senate’s confirmation process for federal judges Tuesday, calling it ‘broken down.'”

The Crimson White reports today that “Chief justice speaks at UA.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Chief justice unsettled by Obama’s criticism of Supreme Court; John G. Roberts Jr. tells law students that the president’s rebuke of a ruling on corporate campaign funding and the subsequent cheering at the State of the Union address were ‘very troubling.’”

Joan Biskupic of USA Today has an article headlined “Roberts: Presidential address is ‘pep rally.’”

The Birmingham News reports that “U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. addresses University of Alabama law students.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “Obama Aide Defends Reproof of U.S. Court After Roberts Comment.”

Via the web site of the University of Alabama School of Law, you can download a podcast of the remarks of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. at the spring 2010 Albritton Lecture by clicking here (54.0MB mp3 audio file).

“Despite High Court Skepticism, Advocates Defend Privileges Clause Push”: Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal has this report.

“U.S. Supreme Court to hear vaccine case; The Bruesewitz family of Mt. Lebanon will get its day at the bar of justice”: This article appears today in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

And, in related coverage, The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports today that “Suit says Mt. Lebanon girl suffered severe brain damage.”

“Hearing Delayed for Obama Judicial Nominee Who Supported Serial Killer”: FOXNews.com has a report that begins, “The Senate Judiciary Committee has postponed the hearing for a controversial Court of Appeals nominee after the panel received a letter from a home-state prosecutor blasting him as a judicial loose cannon and Republicans raised concerns about his alleged bias in favor of sex offenders.”

“Justices to Hear Case of Protest at Marine Funeral”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has an article headlined “Supreme Court to hear case on protests; Justices will rule on suit by parents of soldier whose funeral was marred by anti-gay religious demonstrators.”

The Wichita Eagle reports that “Phelps-protests case to go before Supreme Court.”

The Kansas City Star reports that “Justices to hear case involving Fred Phelps’ protests at military funerals.”

And The York (Pa.) Daily Record reports that “U.S. Supreme Court to hear Snyder-Westboro case.”

“Roberts: Scene at State of Union ‘very troubling.'” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts says the scene at this year’s State of the Union address by President Obama was ‘very troubling,’ and he wonders if justices should attend in the future.”

“Gun Points: History reveals a long-standing local authority to regulate guns; Shouldn’t that matter?” Saul Cornell, Justin Florence, and Matthew Shors have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

And online at The Washington Examiner, Josh Blackman and Ilya Shapiro have an op-ed entitled “Is Justice Scalia abandoning originalism?”

“Funeral-protest case to test boundaries”: Tony Mauro has this news anaysis online at the First Amendment Center.

Fortunately, the panel’s original opinion had issued on Opposite Day: Today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued the following order amending an earlier opinion:

The Opinion filed on December 30, 2009, is amended as follows: on slip Opinion page 16888, delete the word “not” in the first sentence of the section with the title “CONCLUSION.”

You can access the Court’s original, pre-amendment ruling at this link.

“The question of whether a teacher at a sectarian school classifies as a ministerial employee is one of first impression for this Court.” In an opinion issued today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit examines whether the so-called “ministerial exception” to federal anti-discrimination laws precludes a former teacher from bringing a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act against the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School.