“Ginsburg: Roe will hold.” Politico.com has this report.

And at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “Justice Ginsburg Eager for Kagan’s Arrival.”

“William Brennan bio on the way”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy’s Washington Bureau has this post at his “Suits & Sentences” blog.

My most recent earlier mention of that book appeared in a post published one week ago today.

“Nonlawyer at 9th Circuit Beats Toyota on Trademark Law”: Cheryl Miller has this article today in The Recorder.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski is the author of yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

“Appeals court rejects U.S. request to restore drilling moratorium”: This article appears today in The Times-Picayune of New Orleans.

The New York Times reports today that “Court Rejects Moratorium on Drilling in the Gulf.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Appeals court says no to Obama drilling moratorium; The administration may try to redraft the six-month ban imposed after the Deepwater Horizon spill in the gulf.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that “Judges Reject White House’s Drilling Ban Request.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “U.S. loses — for now — on drilling; Gulf moratorium still on hold.”

You can access yesterday’s order from a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.

“‘Grim Sleeper’ Arrest Fans Debate on DNA Use”: The New York TImes contains this article today.

And The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “‘Grim Sleeper’ case raises privacy concerns over use of DNA; ‘Grim Sleeper’ serial killer case was broken when authorities used DNA taken from the suspect’s family members; Is it a breakthrough in police science or an invasion of privacy?”

“Judge rejects gay marriage curb; Ruling in Hub calls US law unconstitutional, infringing on state’s right”: This article appears today in The Boston Globe.

The Boston Herald reports today that “Judge rules fed gay-wed ban illegal.”

The New York Times reports that “Judge Topples U.S. Rejection of Gay Unions.”

Carol J. Williams of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Part of federal gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional; The Defense of Marriage Act goes against states’ rights and the Equal Protection Clause, a federal judge says in two Massachusetts cases.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that “Federal Ban on Gay Marriage Unconstitutional, Judge Says.”

Dan Levine of The Recorder reports that “Mass. Federal Judge Strikes Down Federal Ban on Gay Marriage.”

And today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “Judge: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional.”

This post of mine from yesterday evening contains links to the trial court’s opinions.

“‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ foes win legal victory”: In today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “The federal judge overseeing a challenge to the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ law, scheduled for trial in Southern California next week, has ruled in favor of a gay rights group on a crucial issue — how much evidence the government needs to justify the ban on openly homosexual members of the armed forces.”

“Court rejects bid to restore drilling moratorium”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court on Thursday rejected the federal government’s effort to restore an offshore deepwater drilling moratorium, opening the door to resumed drilling in the Gulf while the legal fight continues.”

Reuters reports that “Court refuses stay in deepwater drilling case.”

Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Appeals Court Rejects Six-Month Moratorium on Deep-Water Oil Drilling.”

You can access via this link (31.3MB Windows Media audio file) the audio of this afternoon’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

“Judge: Federal gay marriage ban unconstitutional.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.”

You can access here and here today’s related rulings of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

“Nevada policy on male guards at female prisons struck down by court”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

“9th Circuit Reversals See Decline”: Lawrence Hurley had this article Tuesday in The Daily Journal of California.

“Appeals court rejects Pratt & Whitney jobs move”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.

“Lawyers file final arguments in Troy Davis case”: The Savannah Morning News contains this article today.

“Westboro files response in Supreme Court case”: This article appears today in The York Daily Record.

And The Associated Press reports that “Church says funeral protests are protected.”

“5th Circuit Judges in Drilling Moratorium Case Have Oil Ties, Report Says”: Tresa Baldas of The National Law Journal has this report.

The New York Times reports today that “Obama Asks Court to Reinstate Ban on Deepwater Drilling.”

Carol J. Williams of The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Ken Salazar urges court to uphold ban on oil drilling; The Interior secretary tells appellate judges that the moratorium is needed to prevent another disaster in the Gulf of Mexico; But opposing lawyers say the economic harm is too great.”

The Times-Picayune reports that “Deepwater drilling moratorium opponents could win battle but lose war.”

Jennifer A. Dlouhy of Hearst Washington Bureau reports that “Legal showdown over drilling moratorium looms.”

The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court to hear drilling moratorium case.”

Reuters reports that “Obama administration set for drill ban legal fight.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “Gulf Drilling Ban Should Be Restored, U.S. Lawyers Tell Court of Appeals.”

“Sotomayor’s GOP ‘yea’ votes remain mute on Kagan; Of 9 Republicans who supported Obama’s 1st nominee, 1 is retired”: USA Today contains this article today.

And The New York Daily News reports today that “Bronx-born Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor judges famed Chinese eatery – but not Lindsay Lohan.”

“A Look At This Year’s Supreme Court Rulings”: This audio segment featuring Tom Goldstein appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“N.J. Supreme Court rules insurance company must defend homeowner sued after woman overdoses”: The Newark Star-Ledger has a news update that begins, “The state Supreme Court today ruled an insurance company must defend a homeowner in a case in which a party guest overdosed on illegal drugs and alcohol.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of New Jersey at this link.

“Unions outspending corporations on campaign ads despite court ruling”: Today’s edition of The Washington Post contains an article that begins, “Labor unions have dominated spending on independent campaign ads so far this election season, despite a recent Supreme Court decision that freed spending by corporations, a Washington Post analysis shows.”

“Ex-press magnate Black seeks bail pending appeal”: The Associated Press has this report.

“2nd Circuit Finds Novartis Drug Reps Not Exempt From Overtime Law; One plaintiffs lawyer says damages could reach $100 million”: The New York Law Journal has this report.

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

“Civil Fight Looms for Defendants in Case of Murdered D.C. Lawyer; Acquittal doesn’t end legal battle in Wone saga”: Jeff Jeffrey and Mike Scarcella of The National Law Journal have this report.

“Clemens asks court to revive defamation claims”: The Associated Press has this report on a case argued today before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

“Lawsuit filed against Chicago’s new gun ordinance”: The Chicago Tribune has this news update.

“Black Asks Appeals Court for Bail After High Court Honest Services Ruling”: Bloomberg News has this report.

“Kagan: Harvard Law’s $476 million dean.” The Associated Press has this report.

“The record clearly shows that the defendants are fools, but that is not the same as being incompetent.” So writes the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a ruling issued today addressing whether the defendants in a criminal case were properly allowed “to represent themselves and assert an absurd legal theory wrapped up in Uniform Commercial Code gibberish.”

“Business method patents nearly bite the dust; Reflecting on Justice Stevens’ lost majority opinion in Bilski“: Tom Goldstein has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

Second Circuit issues ruling in In re Novartis Wage and Hour Litigation: Are pharmaceutical sales reps entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act if they work more than 40 hours per week? That’s the question that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided today.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York had ruled in favor of Novartis, holding that drug company sales reps are not entitled to overtime pay due to FLSA exemptions for “outside salesmen” and “administrative employees.”

Today’s Second Circuit ruling disagrees, thereby reinstating the sales reps’ claims for overtime pay. Among other things, the Second Circuit notes that pharmaceutical sales reps don’t actually sell anything to anyone.

In coverage of today’s ruling, Bloomberg News reports that “Novartis AG’s Salespeople Covered by Wage Laws, U.S. Appeals Court Rules.”

“Bad news for Obama: Conservative Justice Kennedy tells pals he’s in no rush to leave Supreme Court.” The New York Daily News contains this article today.

“Free Speech in Question When Talking Out of School”: This article appeared Saturday in The Wall Street Journal.

Alphabetize this! Sure, it may be a zillion degrees outside, and, yes, my son and I attended last night’s Phillies-Braves game, but nevertheless appellate briefs demand to be finalized and filed (as on Friday I filed one in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and today I’m filing one in the Third Circuit).

Given that this began as, and remains, an “appellate” blog, the following question presents itself — How should unusual case names be alphabetized in an appellate brief’s table of authorities? For example, assume you cite the following four cases in your appellate brief:

United States v. Jones;

United States v. $154,362.05 in U.S. Currency;

United States v. 75 Broken Television Sets; and

United States v. Smith.

How should those cases be alphabetized in the brief’s table of authorities? We will leave the question of how to alphabetize case names that begin with “In re”; “Ex parte”; etc. for a later post. Readers with informed views on this question are invited to respond to this post via email. Thanks much!

Update: I will run a post later featuring reader responses, which have already begun to arrive. Perhaps in a follow-up post, i will also ask for reader input on how to “alphabetize” cases that have identical names.

“Defendants Squeezed by Georgia’s Tight Budget”: Adam Liptak has this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in today’s issue of The New York Times.

“Lawyering Suits Pile Up at High Court; During 2009-2010 term, some 20 percent of the decision docket involved cases on lawyering”: Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal has this report.

“Troy Davis case full of murky legal questions”: The Associated Press has this report.