“Supreme Court says Mojave cross can stand; In a divided ruling, the justices rule that the 1st Amendment calls for ‘accommodation’ of religious displays on public land rather than strict separation of church and state”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Cross in National Preserve Backed by U.S. High Court.”

“This is another case brought by Michigan trial attorney and politician Geoffrey Fieger regarding his feud with several justices of the Michigan Supreme Court.” So begins an opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued today.

Access online today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in an argued case: The Court today issued its ruling in Salazar v. Buono, No. 08-472, the case involving the Mojave cross.

You can access the Court’s ruling at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which the Chief Justice joined and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined in part. The Chief Justice issued a concurring opinion. Justice Alito issued an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Antonin Scalia issued an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined. Justice John Paul Stevens issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined. And Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued a dissenting opinion.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “High court says Mojave cross in Calif. can remain.”

Update: It is interesting to note that the case will now be remanded for the district court to conduct proceedings that a majority of the Justices view as unnecessary or inappropriate.

“Court: Oneida Indian Nation can ignore tax collector.” Today’s edition of The Post-Standard of Syracuse, New York contains an article that begins, “When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the Oneida Indian Nation had to pay property taxes, much of Madison and Oneida counties rejoiced. A federal appeals court on Tuesday, however, stripped the counties of the power to actually collect those taxes. A panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals said that, while the tribe might owe taxes, it can’t be taken to court because it’s sovereign.”

The Oneida Daily Dispatch reports today that “Court rules that Madison and Oneida counties can’t foreclose on Oneida Indian Nation land.”

And The Utica Observer-Dispatch contains an article headlined “US judges: Counties can’t foreclose on Oneidas.”

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

“Calif. Justices Sharply Divided in Arbitration Ruling”: Mike McKee of The Recorder has this report.

My earlier coverage of Monday’s California Supreme Court ruling appears at this link.

“Mayer Brown Not Liable for Losses of Refco Investors, 2nd Circuit Decides; Lawsuit is one of three against the law firm that has been dismissed in the Southern District of New York; another suit is still pending”: Mark Hamblett has this article today in the New York Law Journal.

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Second Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Ninth Circuit Nuttiness: A ruling that only plaintiffs attorneys could love.” This editorial appears today in The Wall Street Journal. You can freely access the full text of the editorial via Google News.

“Top court candidates differ on use of presidential power; Elena Kagan seems to have the broadest view, which worries some liberal legal analysts”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

In today’s edition of The New York Times, Charlie Savage has an article headlined “How Bombing Case Helped Shape Career of a Potential Justice.”

In Monday’s edition of The Washington Post, columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. had an op-ed entitled “The right court fight.”

And at Salon.com, Glenn Greenwald has a blog post titled “Larry Lessig’s ‘case for Kagan’ is the opposite.”

“High court rules with investors in lawsuit against Merck”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

And Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal reports that “Justices Give Boost to Securities Fraud Plaintiffs in Merck Ruling.”

What effect, if any, does the withdrawal of a timely-filed post-judgment motion have on the time to appeal from the judgment in a civil case in federal court? A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued this interesting decision today.

I believe that Circuit Judge Carlos F. Lucero‘s dissenting opinion — which argues that the notice of appeal was timely or, at worst, premature — has the better of this argument.

“Oklahoma abortion bills become law”: The Oklahoman has this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Abortion-rights group sues to block Okla. bill.”

“Getting His Clerkship: How Winning a Coin Flip (Among Other Things) Led John Paul Stevens to Become a Law Clerk to Justice Wiley Rutledge.” Law professor John Q. Barrett has this interesting post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

Second Circuit determines whether a corporation’s outside counsel can be liable for false statements that those attorneys allegedly create, but which are not attributed to the law firm or its attorneys at the time the statements were disseminated: Today’s ruling affirms the dismissal of a securities fraud lawsuit that sought to hold the Mayer Brown law firm liable for matters that allegedly occurred during its representation of the now-bankrupt brokerage firm Refco Inc.

“Supreme Court questions ban of biotech alfalfa”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Selecting Stevens’ Successor; Politics recedes as a critical factor”: Tom Goldstein has this lengthy post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Key GOP Backing May Help Obama Nominee From Connecticut”: Today’s edition of The Hartford Courant contains an article that begins, “Strong support from influential Republicans with ties to the Justice Department appears to have substantially weakened partisan opposition to President Barack Obama’s nomination of Hartford District Judge Robert N. Chatigny to the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.”

“Court seems eager to tackle violent video games”: Tony Mauro has this analysis online at the First Amendment Center.

Today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued two opinions in argued cases.

1. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., No. 08-1198. The vote was 5-3 to reverse. The Chief Justice and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas joined in the majority opinion. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen G. Breyer joined. Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not take part in the ruling. You can access the oral argument transcript at this link.

2. And Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court in Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, No. 08-905. The vote was 9-0 to affirm. The Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, and Sotomayor joined in the majority opinion. Justice Stevens issued an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. And Justice Scalia issued an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. You can access the oral argument transcript at this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court says Vioxx lawsuits can proceed.”

“High court takes video game case; Calif. wants restriction on ‘deviant’ images”: Joan Biskupic has this article today in USA Today.

And in today’s edition of The San Jose Mercury News, Howard Mintz and Troy Wolverton report that “U.S. Supreme Court to consider California’s violent video game law.”

“Wal-Mart Gender Case Divides Court”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

The Washington Post reports today that “Appeals court upholds women’s right to sue Wal-Mart for alleged discrimination.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that “Bias Suit Advances Against Wal-Mart.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google News.

Financial Times reports that “Walmart to seek lawsuit review.”

Dan Levine of The Recorder reports that “9th Circuit OKs Huge Wal-Mart Class.”

And today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “Wal-Mart To Face Massive Discrimination Lawsuit.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s en banc Ninth Circuit ruling appears here and here.

“The First Amendment and Kittens”: Stanley Fish has this post at the “Opinionator” blog of The New York Times.

“Federal Circuit Reverses $4.3 Million Sanction Against McDermott and Medtronic; Though vitiating a Colorado federal judge’s order, the Federal Circuit panel made a point of noting that judges should still rule their courtrooms as they see fit”: law.com has this report.

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Federal Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Breathing While Undocumented”: Linda Greenhouse has this op-ed today in The New York Times.

“Jailbirds Order Up Hot Wings; Junk Food Lifts Inmates’ Spirits, Prison Revenue, but Envy and Diet Are Concerns”: Today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal contains an article that begins, “In a bid to raise cash and keep the peace in crowded jails, wardens nationwide are offering inmates the chance to order meatball subs, cheeseburgers, chicken parmesan–even a ‘Pizza and Wings Party Pack,’ complete with celery, blue cheese and a Pepsi. The program goes beyond the old-fashioned prison commissary, with its cup-a-soups and bags of chips, and it can be quite lucrative for corrections departments.”

“Possible court nominee had ties with Goldman; Solicitor General Kagan served on advisory panel”: This article appears today in USA Today.

Today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Kagan’s Harvard Stint Could Be Selling Point; Record as Conciliator in Law-School Post May Help Win Republican Support for Potential Supreme Court Nomination.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Some Democrats Urge Obama to Avoid Fight Over High Court Choice.”

In yesterday’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, law professor Craig Green had an op-ed entitled “Left’s answer to John Roberts: As with the chief justice, a nomination of Merrick Garland to the high court would be hard to fight.” Green clerked for Garland on the D.C. Circuit.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Tom Goldstein has a lengthy post titled “The Potential Nomination of Merrick Garland: Analysis of his record.”

“Terror suspect’s confessions at issue; Canadian Omar Khadr heads for a military commission, where a judge will decide whether to allow his confessions to be used during his summertime war-court trial”: Carol Rosenberg has this article today in The Miami Herald.

“The issue in this case boils down to a simple question: Where’s the beef?” So begins an opinion that Circuit Judge Richard C. Tallman issued today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

A related YouTube video — not from the Ninth Circuit’s official YouTube channel — can be accessed here.

“Oklahoma House overrides vetoes on two anti-abortion bills”: The Oklahoman has this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Okla. House overrides abortion restrictions vetoes.”

“Justices to Consider Law Limiting the Sale of Violent Video Games”: Adam Liptak will have this article Tuesday in The New York Times.

In Tuesday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Supreme Court to enter fight over violent video games.”

And in Tuesday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, Ben Fritz and David G. Savage will have an article headlined “Supreme Court to hear case on violent video games; The high court agrees to decide whether California and six other states can forbid the sale to minors of video games that show images of humans being maimed, killed or sexually assaulted.”

“Justice by the Hour: The Supreme Court tangles with mandatory arbitration clauses.” Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, No. 09-497.

Three-judge Federal Circuit panel vacates notable attorneys’ fee award that Senior U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch had entered against lawyers from McDermott, Will & Emery in the Medtronic v. BrainLAB case: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit at this link.

Judge Matsch’s imposition of sanctions, which the Federal Circuit has now set aside, received much press coverage. The Denver Post reported that “Judge makes lawyers pay for frivolity; With the verdict overturned, two attorneys must pay the others’ fees.” The Recorder, via law.com, reported that “Federal Judge Blasts Top IP Litigators; Ruling comes in patent fight between medical device companies Medtronic and BrainLAB.” And WSJ.com’s “Law Blog” had a post titled “Judge Matsch Drops the Gavel on McDermott Lawyers,” which linked to the trial court’s sanctions ruling.

In an earlier ruling on the merits of the case, the Federal Circuit upheld Judge Matsch’s decision setting aside the jury’s verdict in favor of Medtronic and granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of BrainLAB.

Divided Supreme Court of California expands availability of judicial review of legally erroneous arbitration decisions in employment discrimination cases: You can access today’s 4-3 ruling of California’s highest court at this link.

“Supreme Court to hear case on violent video games; The high court agrees to decide whether California and six other states can forbid the sale to minors of video games that show images of humans being maimed, killed or sexually assaulted”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.

The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update headlined “Violent video-game ban for kids to get hearing.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers reports that “Supreme Court to review ban on sale of violent video games to minors.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court to take up sale of violent video games to minors; The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the constitutionality of a ban on the sale of violent video games to minors by the state of California.”

Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “High court accepts case over violent video games.”

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Top court to rule on California video game law.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Violent Video Game Law Gets Top U.S. Court Hearing.”

And at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog, David Kravets has a post titled “Supreme Court Takes on Video Game Sales.”

“Once-ousted Bush prosecutor promotes Guantanamo war court”: Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has a news update that begins, “For hearings on whether U.S. forces tortured confessions out of a Canadian teenager accused of killing an American soldier in Afghanistan, the Pentagon Monday unveiled a new face to advocate military commissions: Fired former Bush-era prosecutor David Iglesias, a key figure in the so-called Attorney-Gate scandal.”

“High Court Faces Blockbuster Cases as Stevens’ Retirement Nears”: Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal has this report.