“These facts present a novel question of law: when an owner of a computer consents to its seizure, does that consent include the computer’s hard drive even when it was installed by another who claims ownership of it and objects to its seizure?” A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued this ruling today.

“Rare Breed Now: A Justice Who Wasn’t a Judge.” Adam Liptak will have this front page article Saturday in The New York Times.

“California loses fight to end prison oversight”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The Schwarzenegger administration lost a legal fight Friday to end oversight of California’s prison health care system. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a federal judge can continue with a court-appointed receiver to improve inmate medical care.”

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

“Obama interviews Thomas, Garland for high court”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Judge Keller fined $100,000 for reporting lapse”: Chuck Lindell of The Austin American-Statesman has a blog post that begins, “Sharon Keller, presiding judge of the state’s highest criminal court, has been fined $100,000 by the Texas Ethics Commission for failing to fully report her income and property holdings on annual personal financial statements.”

And The Houston Chronicle has a news update headlined “Ethics Commission hits Keller with record fine.”

You can access the final order of the Texas Ethics Commission at this link.

“In Tribute to Kennedy, SG Kagan Reveals Her ‘Look of Panic’ in First Argument”: Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

Second Circuit vacates the preliminary injunction against the publication, advertising, or distribution of the book “60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye” and remands for further proceedings: Author J.D. Salinger may have died, but litigation that he initiated lives on. You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press has a report headlined “NY court: Swedish author likely to lose fight.”

“Crush Democracy but Save the Kittens: Justice Alito’s double standard for the First Amendment.” Law professor Richard L. Hasen, author of the “Election Law Blog,” has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“ABC News Poll: Public Gives President Obama Latitude in Supreme Court Nomination; Two-thirds Say They’re Comfortable Having Obama Make the Choice.” ABCNews.com has this report.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes and Jennifer Agiesta report that “Poll affirms a vote for judicial know-how.”

CNN.com has reports headlined “Sources: White House officials urging liberal pick for court vacancy” and “Obama meets with Supreme Court candidate Sidney Thomas.”

Reuters reports that “Judge from Montana interviewed for Supreme Court.”

And U.S. News & World Report has an article headlined “White House Expects Battle Over Supreme Court Nominee; Advisers say Obama’s pick will draw controversy no matter who he chooses.”

“Obama Says Liberal Courts May Have Overreached”: Charlie Savage and Sheryl Gay Stolberg have this article today in The New York Times.

“AP source: Obama interviews Thomas for high court.” The Associated Press has this report. Apparently President Obama has identified what the U.S. Supreme Court has been lacking — two Justices with the same last name serving on the Court at the same time.

“Robert Henry, 10th Circuit’s chief appeals judge, steps down”: The Oklahoman has a news update that begins, “Robert H. Henry announced today that he is stepping down as chief judge of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, effective midnight Friday. Judge Mary Beck Briscoe, who is based in Kansas, will be the new chief judge, according to a news release.”

According to her official biography at the Federal Judicial Center’s web site, Circuit Judge Mary Beck Briscoe, before joining the Tenth Circuit, had served as chief judge of the Kansas Court of Appeals. Additional information appears at the Tenth Circuit’s web site.

“Senate Judiciary panel wants court TV coverage”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The Supreme Court would televise many of its public sessions and cameras would be permitted in lower federal courts, at a judge’s discretion, if the Senate Judiciary Committee has its way.”

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Mike Scarcella has a post titled “Senate Committee Advances Federal Court Camera Access.”

“Showdown at Guantanamo: Khadr won’t come to court.” Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has this news update.

And The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Military tribunal opens hearings on Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr.”

“Mojave symbol should stay, high court rules; Clarity in San Diego case elusive”: Greg Moran has this article today in The San Diego Union-Tribune.

Today’s edition of The Press-Enterprise of Riverside, California reports that “Mojave Desert cross can remain on public land, at least for now.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court allows Mojave war memorial cross; It narrowly rules that the 1st Amendment calls for a middle-ground ‘policy of accommodation’ toward religious displays on public land, not a total ban on symbols of faith.”

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court overturns objection to cross on public land.”

Joan Biskupic of USA Today reports that “Ruling revives efforts for cross on public land.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Court Says Cross Can Remain; Mojave Desert Icon Is Deemed More Veterans’ Memorial Than Religious Symbol.”

The Washington Times reports that “Mojave Cross can stay on display in California; Supreme Court defends public religious symbol.”

Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal reports that “Divided High Court Lets Mojave Cross Memorial Stand.” And online at the First Amendment Center, Mauro has an analysis headlined “Legal fight over Mojave cross continues.”

On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “Mojave Cross Ruling Shows A Supreme Court Shift.” And on yesterday evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered,” Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “Supreme Court: Cross Can Stay On Federal Land.”

“Elena Kagan Endorsed Controversial Bush Nominees”: Sam Stein has this item at “The Huffington Post.”

“Ninth Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson to Receive University of California Award”: The Public Information Office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued this news release.

“Federal appeals Judge Rosemary Pooler recuperates in University Hospital”: This article appeared last Saturday in The Post-Standard of Syracuse, New York.

“D.C. delegate: Obama unlikely to pick African-American for Supreme Court.” The Hill has this report.

Newsweek has posted online an item headlined “Judiciary Advice for Obama: Our distinguished panel of experts makes the case for their favorite candidates to succeed John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court.”

The “Room for Debate” blog of The New York Times offers responses to the question “Who Should Be the Next Justice?”

And at the web site of The Christian Science Monitor, Seth Stern has this review of the new book “John Paul Stevens: An Independent Life” by Bill Barnhart and Gene Schlickman.

“Judge Has Record on Abortion Issue”: In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Nathan Koppel has an article that begins, “Recent Supreme Court nominees have come before the Senate with such slim records on abortion that their views were anybody’s guess. Not so with Diane Wood, a Chicago federal appellate judge who is on the White House’s short list of candidates for the latest high-court vacancy.”

And today in The Los Angeles Times, columnist Meghan Daum has an op-ed entitled “The Supreme Court could use an oboist: Judge Diane P. Wood plays the oboe; What better quality can there be in a potential nominee to the Supreme Court?”

“States test abortion limits”: Politico.com has this report.

The Oklahoman reports today that “Hearing set on Oklahoma abortion lawsuit; On law’s first day, one clinic reports no one changed course after an ultrasound was performed.”

The Tulsa World reports today that “Tulsa clinic complying with law; But the clinic is involved in challenging a state law requiring ultrasounds before abortions.”

The Associated Press has reports headlined “Oklahoma pushes legal limits on taxpayers’ dime” and “Clinic: New Okla. abortion law hard on patients.”

The Advocate of Baton Rouge, Louisiana contains a front page article headlined “Senate panel alters, backs abortion bill; One mandate on ultrasound dropped.”

And The Miami Herald contains an article headlined “Senate advances conservative agenda; The state Senate veered right and prepared to vote on abortion, school prayer and redistricting.”

“Federal Appeals Court Nominee Faces Tough Questioning”: Today’s edition of The Hartford Courant contains an article that begins, “Federal appeals court nominee Robert N. Chatigny was battered Wednesday by U.S. Senate Republicans, who subjected him to nearly two hours of criticism over his handling of a legal hearing five years ago that postponed the execution of serial killer Michael Ross.”

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” David Ingram has a post titled “GOP Senators Hammer Nominee on Death Penalty Case.”

“Obama warns of a ‘conservative’ judicial activism”: The Associated Press has this report.

And “The Caucus” blog of The New York Times has a post titled “Up in the Air, Obama Meets the Press.”

“What’s Your Sign? A Supreme Court case that puts Scalia and gay rights advocates on the same side.” Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

“Justices’ Ruling Blocks Cross Removal”: Adam Liptak will have this article Thursday in The New York Times.

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Vets win Supreme Court victory in ‘Mojave cross’ case; The cross on a desert hilltop in the Mojave National Preserve in California has stood since 1934. Opponents say having the Mojave cross on public land violates the constitutional prohibition on government endorsement of religion.”

And Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “High court rules cross doesn’t violate separation of church and state.”

“Conservative group doesn’t sway Scalia in ballot signature case”: Les Blumenthal of McClatchy Newspapers has this report.

And The Seattle Times has a news update headlined “Supreme Court skeptical on keeping Ref. 71 petition names secret: Democracy takes ‘civic courage.’”

“New war court manual reaches Guantanamo”: Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has this news update.

“Jury sides with SM company in love-doll case”: The North County Times of Escondido, California has a news update that begins, “A Valley Center man must pay nearly $300,000 to his former employer after breaking away to start his own love-doll company, a Vista Superior Court jury decided Wednesday.”

Earlier, the newspaper reported that “‘Love doll’ entrepreneurs battle in North County court.”

“Stevens hears last argument as justice”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press has this report.

“On Supreme Court’s Final Argument Day, First Amendment Dominates”: Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Much ado about a little cross”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“NJ court agrees to hear US senator recall case”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “New Jersey’s highest court has agreed to hear the case of a tea party group seeking to recall one of the state’s U.S. senators.”

“Supreme Court supports cross on federal land in Calif.” Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this news update.

“Jessica Seinfeld wins NY culinary copycat claim”: The Associated Press has this report on a non-precedential ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.

“Without Scalia, whither anonymity?” At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post that begins, “Justice Antonin Scalia, using history, sarcasm and political taunts, laid down a barrage of objections Wednesday to a plea that the Supreme Court create a new constitutional right of anonymity for individuals who sign petitions to get policy measures onto election ballots.”

And Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Court skeptical on keeping signers’ names private.”