“Appeals court reverses McAfee CFO’s conviction”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

“Federal judges urged to quit private group’s board”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

The second paragraph of the article incorrectly identifies Edith Brown Clement as the Fifth Circuit‘s chief judge.

Update: The article has since been rewritten to eliminate the error mentioned above, which the article contained when this post was first published.

“Long Road for Lawyer Defending the Health Care Law”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

“5 ex-captives seek to revive torture-flights suit”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

And at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog, David Kravets has a post titled “Supreme Court Asked to Review State Secrets, Torture Case.”

You can access the cert. petition at this link.

“Senate, for Just the 8th Time, Votes to Oust a Federal Judge”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

Today’s edition of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans contains an article headlined “Thomas Porteous is the eighth federal judge to be convicted and removed from office by the Senate” and an editorial entitled “Removal of Judge Thomas Porteous helps repair the damage to the federal judiciary.”

And The Los Angeles Times reports that “Senate convicts Louisiana federal judge in impeachment trial; Thomas Porteous is removed from office after being found guilty on corruption and perjury charges brought by the House; The vote on one count is unanimous.”

“DNA alone enough for new charges in old crimes, SJC says”: John R. Ellement of The Boston Globe has a news update that begins, “The state’s high court ruled today that genetic science is now so accurate that criminal charges can be based solely on ‘John Doe’ DNA profiles, and that charges can remain active even if takes years for the suspect to be fully identified.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Mass. court affirms ‘John Doe’ rape indictments.”

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

“As jurors go online, U.S. trials go off track”: Brian Grow of Reuters has a report that begins, “The explosion of blogging, tweeting and other online diversions has reached into U.S. jury boxes, raising serious questions about juror impartiality and the ability of judges to control courtrooms.”

And in somewhat related news, yesterday the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a news release headlined “Advisory Opinion: Judges May ‘Friend’ ‘Tweet’ if Proper Caution Exercised.” You can access the advisory opinion from that court’s Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline by clicking here.

“More states enter debate on sharia law”: USA Today has this report.

“Three Federal Appeals Judges Urged to Resign from Board of FREE”: Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

Conrad Black update: Last month, the attorneys for Conrad Black filed a petition for rehearing en banc in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The court then requested a response from the federal government. You can access that response at this link.

Most recently, on Monday of this week, Black’s attorneys filed a motion for leave to file a reply brief, with the proposed reply brief attached to the motion.

Last month, Black’s filing of the rehearing petition received some press attention in Canada. The Toronto Globe and Mail reported that “Black’s lawyers file motion for review of convictions.”

And National Post reported that “Conrad Black again seeks to clear his name.”

Further update: At “The Volokh Conspiracy,” John Elwood has a post titled “7th Circuit to Conrad Black: No Reply Brief for You!”

“‘Straight arrow’ considers health-care suit”: Today’s edition of The Washington Post contains an article that begins, “Michael Vick, currently enjoying a dazzling comeback season as quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles, has a perhaps unusual fan: The man who sentenced him to almost two years in federal prison for running a dog-fighting operation in Virginia.”

“The case for engaged justices”: Columnist George F. Will had this op-ed in Sunday’s edition of The Washington Post.

“Supreme Court to Review Walmart Gender-Bias Class Action”: Adam Cohen has this essay online at the web site of Time magazine.

“High court weighs Ariz. employer sanctions law”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The Supreme Court appears likely to sustain an Arizona law that threatens to take away the licenses of businesses that knowingly hire workers who are in the United States illegally.”

Update: You can access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Chamber of Commerce of United States v. Whiting, No. 09-115, by clicking here.

“Senate votes to remove Judge Thomas Porteous from office”: Bruce Alpert and Jonathan Tilove of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans have this news update.

“Senate convicts La. judge on impeachment charges”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Supreme Court weighs idea of free speech on Internet; Liability of posting hyperlink considered”: Today’s edition of The Vancouver Sun contains an article that begins, “The Internet’s wild west era as a veritable free speech zone may be quickly coming to an end in Canada. The Supreme Court in Ottawa on Tuesday reserved decision on whether simply posting a hyperlink could be considered defamatory and actionable.”

Janice Tibbetts of Postmedia News has an article headlined “Hyperlinks thread that binds the web, Supreme Court told.”

CBC News reports that “Hyperlink libel fears heard by top court; Supreme Court deciding whether links can be considered ‘publication.’”

And Financial Post reports that “SCC reserves judgment on hyperlink liability.”

The Supreme Court of Canada provides this background on the case.

“Supreme Court to hear Arizona case about illegal workers”: Joan Biskupic has this article today in USA Today.

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “Business, Labor Take On Arizona.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “‘Business Death Penalty’ for Hiring Illegal Aliens Unites Obama, Companies.”

Today’s edition of NPR’s “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “High Court Case Tests Ariz. Law Targeting Employers” featuring Nina Totenberg.

The Arizona Republic contains an editorial entitled “High court can affirm feds’ role in immigration.”

And The Washington Post contains an editorial entitled “Immigration court.”

“Mutual Fund Company Shareholder Suits May Split Court”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

You can access the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, No. 09-525, by clicking here.

“Woman complains to EEOC; fiance fired”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post. The newspaper also contains an article headlined “A visit to law school.”

Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Court to decide limits on retaliation ban.”

And online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a Supreme Court dispatch entitled “Six Degrees of Retaliation: The Supreme Court tries to determine if your fiance can be fired for your sex-discrimination complaint.”

You can access the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, No. 09-291, by clicking here.

“Will of voters should not guide judges”: This editorial appears today in The Des Moines Register.

“Thomas Porteous lawyer tells Senate judge made mistakes, but is no ‘grotesque character'”: Bruce Alpert has this article today in The Times-Picayune of New Orleans. The newspaper also contains an article headlined “Senators put aside bickering for solemn duty in Porteous impeachment case.”

And David Ingram of The National Law Journal reports that “Senate Considers Impeachment of Federal Judge.”

“Monday’s must-see TV: What C-SPAN’s broadcast of Monday’s hearing made clear was both the high seriousness of the three judges hearing the case and the nonpartisan quality of their inquiries.” Columnist Tim Rutten has this op-ed today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Court: FDA can regulate e-cigs as tobacco products.” The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

And in other coverage, Bloomberg News reports that “FDA Loses Appeal, Can’t Regulate Electronic Cigarettes as Drug, Court Says.”

“Senate takes up impeachment of Louisiana judge”: The Associated Press has this report.

C-SPAN2 is providing live coverage of the proceedings.

“Occidental lawsuit should stay in U.S.: appeals court.” Dan Levine of Reuters has this report.

And The Associated Press reports that “LA court can hear Peruvian case against oil giant.”

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

“Two Supreme Court cases to test corporate interests”: Robert Barnes has this article today in The Washington Post.

Today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal contains articles headlined “Supreme Court Will Consider Wal-Mart Challenge to Class-Action Suit” and “Supreme Court Set to Review CO2 Suits.”

Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal reports that “Court agrees to hear closely watched Wal-Mart and global warming cases.”

The Washington Times contains an article headlined “Justices to hear Wal-Mart appeal of plaintiffs’ class-action status; Retailer: Not all female workers qualify for suit.”

The New York Times reports that “Justices to Rule on States’ Emissions Case.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Supreme Court takes global warming case that targets power companies; A global warming lawsuit aiming to force power companies to curtail carbon emissions will come before the Supreme Court next year; The suit asks for a judicial order to that effect, but would such a move usurp role of other government branches?”

And Lawrence Hurley of Greenwire reports that “Supreme Court Takes Up Climate ‘Nuisance’ Case.”

“Judge Thomas Porteous impeachment question goes before Senate today”: Bruce Alpert has this article today in The Times-Picayune of New Orleans.

And Politico.com reports that “Senate to hold rare trial of judge.”

C-SPAN2 plans to provide live coverage beginning at 10 a.m. eastern time.

“Supreme Court will act on immigration, even if Congress doesn’t”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers has an article that begins, “The Supreme Court this week takes up the national immigration debate that continues to stymie Congress.”

Ariane de Vogue of ABC News reports that “Supreme Court to Hear Arizona Immigration Debate; Controversial State Law Punishes Businesses for Hiring Undocumented Aliens Knowlingly.”

And today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times contains an editorial entitled “Arizona’s overreach: The state’s attempt to crack down on companies that hire illegal immigrants encroaches on federal authority.”

In commentary available online at Slate: Walter Dellinger has a jurisprudence essay entitled “Standing on Its Head: Why the technical ‘standing’ issue properly decides the gay marriage appeal.”

And Emily Bazelon has a jurisprudence essay entitled “Gay Marriage Has a Good Day in Court: California’s Proposition 8, not so much.”

“Extreme Makeover: Criminal Court Edition.” John Schwartz has this article today in The New York Times. A related sidebar is headlined “Guilty of Violating Dress Code, in Any Case.”

Related news updates can be accessed from The St. Petersburg Times and The Tampa Tribune.

“Appeals court hints at narrow Prop. 8 ruling”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this news update.

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Prop. 8: Deciding what to decide; The Ninth Circuit Court, in more than two hours of oral argument on California’s ban on same-sex marriage, explores ways to avoid ruling right away and ways to rule, if it must, in a modest yet still historic way.”

The Associated Press reports that “Televised gay marriage hearing attracts audience.”

And this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained audio segments entitled “Gay Marriage Hearing Begins In Calif. Court” and “Expect More Legal Twists In Battle Over Prop. 8.”

Via C-SPAN, you can access the video of today’s Ninth Circuit oral argument online by clicking here.

“Justices Hear Case on Denial of Help to Veteran Who Missed Filing Deadline”: Adam Liptak will have this article Tuesday in The New York Times.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Court hears appeal from veteran who missed filing deadline.”

Joan Biskupic of USA Today has a news update headlined “Supreme Court hears veterans’ disability case.”

And Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Court deals with veterans’ time limit on benefits.”

You can access the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Henderson v. Shinseki, No. 09-1036, by clicking here.

“Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Wal-Mart Bias Case Appeal”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Court to decide if one class-action suit is proper in massive Wal-Mart discrimination case.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Wal-Mart, global warming cases will get hearings before Supreme Court; The Supreme Court agrees to take up two cases of interest to corporate America: whether a sex-discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart can proceed as a class action, and whether courts can put limits on carbon emissions from power plants.”

Joan Biskupic of USA Today has a news update headlined “High court to hear Wal-Mart’s appeal in sex bias suit.”

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Wal-Mart class-action appeal goes to Supreme Court.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Wal-Mart Gets High Court Review in Million-Worker Bias Case.”

Brent Kendall of Dow Jones Newswires reports that “Supreme Court Will Consider Wal-Mart Challenge to Bias Suit.”

And Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Wal-Mart wins Supreme Court review of huge bias suit against it; The Supreme Court said Monday it will consider whether a class-action suit filed against Wal-Mart, representing 1.5 million former and current female employees, should be allowed to proceed.”

“Televised gay marriage hearing begins in CA court”: The Associated Press has this report.

Via C-SPAN, you can view the Ninth Circuit oral argument live, online, by clicking here.