“Paxil Litigation Over Birth Defects Shifts to Settlement”: Amaris Elliott-Engel has this article today in The Legal Intelligencer. I worked on plaintiffs’ brief in opposition to defendant’s post-trial motions filed in the Kilker case, which is discussed in the article.

“Predicting an end to Roe v. Wade”: This article appears today at Politico.com.

“Fellow law clerks endorse Kagan for court”: The Associated Press has this report.

And Politico.com reports that “GOP ‘expects’ to attend Elena Kagan hearings.”

“It’s Alive: Can Elena Kagan save the legal left?” Law professor Justin Driver has this essay in the July 8, 2010 issue of The New Republic.

“The Justice of Oz: As Elena Kagan shows, you need to lose your heart, brain, and courage to get on the Supreme Court.” Dahlia Lithwick has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“New trial for Sharee Miller in notorious Internet-related murder case angers family of victim, Bruce Miller”: Back in August 2008, The Flint (Mich.) Journal published an article that begins, “There could be a sequel on the horizon to one of the steamiest murder trials in recent county history — one packed with sex, provocative e-mails and suicide. A federal judge on Wednesday ordered a new trial for Sharee Miller, who was convicted of manipulating an Internet lover to kill her husband here in 1999 before the man killed himself.”

Today, in a ruling that you can access here, the majority on a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed that grant of a new trial.

In coverage of today’s ruling, The Associated Press reports that “Flint-area woman gets new trial in ’99 murder.”

And WJRT-TV’s ABC12 News reports that “Sharee Miller is getting a new trial.”

“GOP, Democratic solicitors general back Kagan”: The Associated Press has this report.

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “Former SGs Endorse Kagan for Supreme Court.”

You can view the endorsement letter at this link.

Programming note: This afternoon, I will be arguing three related appeals before a three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

On February 11, 2010, The Legal Intelligencer — Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers — reported on the cases in an article by Amaris Elliott-Engel headlined “Scope of Prescription Drug Tort Lawsuits to Be Tested; Appeals Ct. to Mull Negligent Marketing Cause of Action.”

You can access the appellate briefs that I filed in these cases at the following links: Cochran (opening brief and reply brief); Owens (opening brief and reply brief); and Lance (opening brief and reply brief).

Additional posts will appear here later today.

“Obama slowly puts his mark on federal courts; Most cases never reach the Supreme Court, so appeals judges are crucial”: Tom Curry, national affairs writer for MSNBC, has this report.

And Rob Hotakainen of McClatchy Newspapers reports that “Obama pushes to diversify federal courts, but it’s a slow process.”

“Supreme Court upholds anti-terror law”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this news update.

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has articles headlined “Supreme Court upholds controversial part of Patriot Act; On Monday, the Supreme Court upheld a statute — part of the Patriot Act — that outlaws the provision of ‘material support’ to terror groups; Such support includes assistance that might nudge a group toward nonviolence” and “Supreme Court ruling barring aid to terrorist groups: why some lament it; Humanitarian and peace organizations say their direct interaction with violent or terrorist groups is vital to intervention efforts; The Supreme Court decision Monday means they do it at their peril.”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “High Court Backs ‘Material Support’ Anti-Terror Law.”

“Abortion rights group says Kagan’s view unclear”: The Associated Press has an article that begins, “An abortion rights group says it’s unclear how deeply Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan supports abortion rights. The Center for Reproductive Rights says in a report issued Monday that Kagan’s record shows she believes the Constitution affords the right to an abortion.”

You can access the organization’s report at this link.

“Court dismisses seat-belt violator’s Taser suit”: In Saturday’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko had an article that begins, “A federal appeals court reversed itself Friday and dismissed a lawsuit by a Southern California man who was Tasered by a police officer after being stopped for not wearing a seat belt.”

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

This same three-judge Ninth CIrcuit panel, in December 2009, issued a quite different ruling in deciding this very appeal. My previous coverage of that earlier ruling can be accessed here.

“Supreme Court Affirms Ban on Aiding Groups Tied to Terror”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Supreme Court upholds law against advising terrorists; In a 6-3 vote, justices say human rights advocates can be prosecuted if they advise members of a foreign terrorist group, even if they urge them to settle their disputes through peaceful means.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has a news update headlined “Supreme Court Upholds Antiterror Law.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers has an article headlined “Broadening prosecutorial powers, High Court says government knows best in terror cases.”

And Bill Mears of CNN.com has an article headlined “High court: Law banning ‘support’ of terror groups constitutional.”

“New Troy Davis hearing this week in cop’s death”: Bill Rankin of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has this news update, in which I am quoted.

“Pfizer Rejected by Supreme Court on Menopause Drug”: Greg Stohr and Jef Feeley of Bloomberg News have this report.

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court rejects Pfizer punitive damages appeal.”

And Brent Kendall of Dow Jones Newswires reports that “US Supreme Court Denies Wyeth Appeal In Hormone Therapy Case.”

“Bork to publicly oppose Kagan for Supreme Court”: The Associated Press has this report.

Access online today’s opinions in argued cases and Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: The Court today issued four decisions in argued cases.

1. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, No. 09-475. You can access the ruling at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

2. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court in Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp., No. 08-1553. You can access the ruling at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

3. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court in Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, No. 09-497. You can access the ruling at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

4. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, No. 08-1498. You can access the ruling at this link and the oral argument transcript at this link.

You can access today’s Order List at this link. The Court today granted review in three cases.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press has reports headlined “High court upholds anti-terror law“; “High court lifts ban on biotech alfalfa“; “High court to review mental health advocacy suit“; and “High court rejects drug maker’s appeal.”

“Troy Davis heads back to Savannah”: This article appeared yesterday in The Savannah Morning News.

And The Associated Press reports that “Court to hear innocence claim in Ga. death case.”

“Nazi salute case to help define free speech limits”: Paul Elias of The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Robert Norse’s Nazi salute lasted fewer than five seconds before he was removed from the Santa Cruz City Council meeting in handcuffs. But the Santa Claus-bearded gadfly’s free speech lawsuit against the city has lasted more than six years and may be destined for the U.S. Supreme Court. On Tuesday, the 9th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals will convene a rare 11-judge panel to consider how thick-skinned and tolerant public officials need to be before they can silence and evict dissenters from meetings.”

“Why the high court’s work goes beyond ‘balls and strikes'”: Donald B. Ayer has this op-ed today in The Washington Post.

And at “The Huffington Post,” Seth Stern has an item headlined “When Ideology in Supreme Court Confirmations Goes Too Far.”

“Kagan Hearing Gives Nominee the Chance to Make Good on Her Call for Candor”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Family Court deal: Some Obermayer lawyers knew about Rotwitt’s codeveloper role.” This article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer, along with an editorial entitled “Castille must resign” and an op-ed by columnist Karen Heller entitled “The latest high-court fiasco: Powerful, plugged-in lawyers are hired to probe powerful, plugged-in lawyers.”

“Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Squeezing BP for damages.” Michael Kirkland of UPI has this report.

“Bill Clinton Speaks Out on Kagan”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

Today’s edition of The Washington Post reports that “Records suggest Kagan played small part in settling Harvard-military dispute.”

Bill Mears of CNN.com has articles headlined “Kagan e-mails show confident, brassy side to Supreme Court nominee” and “Pentagon had doubts about Kagan over military recruiting on campus.”

The Associated Press reports that “Kagan unscathed after revelations from past.”

Mike Allen of Politico.com has an article headlined “Dems: E-mail bolsters Kagan.”

And columnist Dick Polman of The Philadelphia Inquirer has an essay entitled “As hearing approaches, Elena Kagan an enigma.”

“Judge’s fate in panel’s hands; Whether Sharon Keller followed court procedures in handling of death row appeal debated”: Chuck Lindell has this article today in The Austin American-Statesman.

The San Antonio Express-News reports today that “Judge Keller’s fate now is in panel’s hands.”

Dave Montgomery of The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that “Panel begins deliberating after hearing on Texas criminal appeals court’s top judge.”

The Dallas Morning News reports that “Texas judicial panel hears complaint against Keller.”

Nathan Koppel of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Texas Agency Weighs Penalty for Judge in Thwarted Appeal.”

The Associated Press reports that “Texas judge’s career in disciplinary panel’s hands.”

And Mary Alice Robbins of Texas Lawyer reports that “Sharon Keller Case in Hands of Judicial Conduct Commission; Commission’s special counsel tells commission that Texas’ top criminal court’s presiding judge violated long-standing execution-day protocols.”

“Kagan’s E-Mail at Clinton White House Reveals a Blunt, Savvy Legal Adviser”: Adam Liptak and Sheryl Gay Stolberg have this article today in The New York Times. Tomorrow’s newspaper, meanwhile, will contain an article headlined “The Kagan Family: Left-Leaning and Outspoken.”

Today’s edition of The Washington Post contains an article headlined “Kagan’s newly released e-mails reveal confident voice in Clinton White House.”

James Oliphant of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Clinton library releases Kagan e-mails; The Supreme Court nominee was more of an administrator than provocateur during her time in the Clinton White House, according to the messages.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has an article headlined “In Clinton-Era Emails, Glimpses of Kagan’s Personality.”

At Politico.com, Josh Gerstein reports that “Kagan emails show N.Y. state of mind.”

The Associated Press reports that “Kagan’s e-mails show dry wit, political savvy.”

Laura Litvan and Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News report that “Kagan Demonstrates Political Approach in Clinton Policy Issues.”

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “Kagan E-mails Released by Clinton Library.”

“Mental retardation burden of proof in death cases unconstitutional”: Bill Rankin of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a news update that begins, “The burden that Georgia places on death-penalty defendants to prove they are mentally retarded — and thus ineligible for execution — is unconstitutional, the federal appeals court in Atlanta ruled Friday.”

You can access today’s ruling of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit at this link.

“Kagan and Shariah: Supreme court nominee displays selective moral outrage.” This editorial appears today in The Washington Times.

“High Court Rules On Beaches, Texting, Labor Board”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

And yesterday evening’s broadcast of the PBS program “NewsHour” contained a segment entitled “Supreme Court Hands Down Rulings on Labor, Privacy, Property Cases” featuring Marcia Coyle.

“Supreme Court rules on employer monitoring of cellphone, computer conversations”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post.

In today’s edition of USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Court upholds search of police officer’s texts; Places limits on government workers’ privacy.”

The Press-Enterprise of Riverside, California has an article headlined “Can’t assume government-sent messages are private.”

The Washington Times reports that “Court rejects privacy of texter in narrow ruling.”

The Kansas City Star reports that “Supreme Court ruling finds messages sent on employer-provided equipment not private.”

And Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal reports that “Supreme Court Allows Search of Employee’s City-Owned Pager.”

“Texas judge goes before panel with career on line”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Prosecutors say Sharon Keller is ‘not the right person’ to be the highest-ranking criminal judge in Texas if she can’t admit she wrongly turned away a death row inmate’s attorneys the night of his execution.”

“Justices Debate Issues in an Oceanfront Case”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times. The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Common Sense and Private Property.”

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Supreme Court rules Fla. beach work doesn’t affect property owners’ rights.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rejects Florida beach owners’ claim; Justices rule that Florida law trumps property rights in a case in which the state added sand to an eroding beach, turning oceanfront property into ocean-view property.”

Joan Biskupic of USA Today reports that “Justices rule against Florida landowners in beach dispute.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers reports that “Florida beachfront landowners lose in Supreme Court tie.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court rules against homeowners in Florida beach dispute; The Supreme Court ruled against a group of waterfront property owners who said the state of Florida owed them money because it pumped sand onto beaches eroded by storms, lowering property values.”

The St, Petersburg Times reports that “Supreme Court decision backs beach renourishment.”

The Palm Beach Post reports that “Beachfront owners lose Supreme Court case over property rights.”

The Northwest Florida Daily News has an article headlined “Supreme Court: Restoring beaches is not ‘taking’ private property.”

And on yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “High Court Rules Against Beachfront Homeowners.”

“National Labor Relations Board decisions were illegal, Supreme Court rules”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.

Andrew Seidman of McClatchy Newspapers reports that “Supreme Court casts doubt on hundreds of NLRB rulings.”

And Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal reports that “High Court Finds Hundreds of Labor Cases Were Improperly Decided.”

“Bid to end senators’ ‘secret holds’ advances”: David Goldstein of McClatchy Newspapers has this report.

“Dawn Johnsen: ‘I Have No Regrets.'” David Ingram had this post last night at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”