“3 to 2 for Health Care Reform”: This editorial appears today in The New York Times.

“Obama defends Ashcroft in Supreme Court terror case”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers has this report.

“Speed Trap: Why the Supreme Court should decline to rush to judgment on health reform.” Simon Lazarus and Timothy Jost have this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Justices weigh dispute over child-abuse cases”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Hearing could reopen case of Barnes art move”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

“Court reverses videotape conviction”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court has overturned the conviction of a West Texas man charged with one count of production of child pornography for secretly videotaping a 16-year-old girl at an Odessa tanning salon.”

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

Earlier coverage of the case from The Odessa American can be accessed here, here, and here.

“Shift on Gay-Marriage Law Will Affect Array of Policies”: Geoffrey A. Fowler and Evan Perez have this article today in The Wall Street Journal.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Justification asked for DOMA plan; A federal judge orders the U.S. government to explain its plan to enforce the federal ban on benefits for legally-married same-sex couples even while taking the position that the ban is unconstitutional.”

“Christian legal group appeals health care ruling”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A Christian legal group is appealing a judge’s dismissal of its lawsuit against President Barack Obama’s requirement that all Americans get health insurance.”

Handouts and demonstratives at an appellate oral argument: For reasons that I’d be more than happy to discuss further in the event that anyone is interested, I’m not a huge fan of using handouts or demonstrative exhibits at an appellate oral argument.

Moments before my en banc oral argument was to begin Wednesday at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, opposing counsel handed me a collection of documents that he proposed to distribute to the judges to walk them through his presentation. That was, frankly, the first time that I had had that happen to me or seen that happen in more than 20 years of appellate work.

The representatives of the Third Circuit’s clerk’s office in the courtroom would not allow the handout to be distributed to the judges without my consent. I decided not to consent, because the best use of my time in the moments before the oral argument was not perusing opposing counsel’s proposed handout, and there was nothing that had precluded opposing counsel from finding out earlier in advance of the oral argument that my consent was needed and then requesting my consent at that earlier time.

Yesterday, Class Counsel filed this motion for leave to file the handout. My response to the motion, which I have just electronically filed, can be accessed here.

“Federal court upholds Starbucks win in Kraft case”: The Associated Press has this report on a non-precedential ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.

“Gubernatorial appointments render Iowa one of only three states with all-male high court”: The National Center for State Courts has issued this revised and corrected backgrounder today.

“With Friends Like These: The Troubling Implications of the Government’s Recent Effort to Block Amicus Curiae Briefs in a Controversial White Collar Criminal Appeal.” Attorneys Anthony J. Franze and R. Stanton Jones of Arnold & Porter LLP have published this essay in Bloomberg Law Reports.

“Jury Nullification Advocate Is Indicted”: This article will appear in Saturday’s edition of The New York Times.

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” law professor Eugene Volokh has a related post titled “Suppression of Jury Nullification Advocates’ Speech Outside Courthouse.”

“Imperial County, Calif., renews gay marriage fight”: The Associated Press has this report.

In the March 2011 issue of ABA Journal magazine: Mark Walsh has an article headlined “Corporate Giant Wal-Mart Faces a Huge Class Action By Female Workers.”

John Gibeaut has an article headlined “Candidates Say Public Campaign Funds Chill Their 1st Amendment Rights.”

And Mark Curriden has an article headlined “Lawyer’s Attempt to Keep His Head Above Water Landed a Client on Death Row.”

“Scrushy talks appeal, life after prison”: These interview excerpts appear online at the web site of the Birmingham Business Journal.

“Court Likely to Uphold Constitutionality of ‘Nude’ Airport Scanners”: David Kravets has this post at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog.

“High court orders briefs in Facebook juror case”: Today’s edition of The Sacramento Bee contains an article that begins, “The California Supreme Court wants to take a closer look at the Facebook juror case that originated in Sacramento.”

“Legal fight over Facebook continues; Brothers Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, who maintain that Mark Zuckerberg ripped them off to build Facebook, are contesting an out-of-court settlement reached three years ago”: This article appeared yesterday in The Los Angeles Times.

“Pennsylvania court reviewing teen’s abortion case”: Today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer contains a front page article that begins, “For the first time, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has acknowledged it is reviewing the case of a pregnant teenager who was denied permission for an abortion by a county judge.”

“Federal Judiciary Braces for Possible Government Shutdown”: Mike Scarcella has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

Notwithstanding this blog’s generally woeful coverage of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces: This afternoon, I received the following email from someone affiliated with that court:

Good Afternoon Sir/Madam,

Our Chief Judge Andrew S. Effron has asked that I contact How Appealing in reference to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 2011 Judicial Conference to be held at The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, March 9-10. Would it be possible to display the attached information on your website?

Instead of my displaying that information, which merely lists the scheduled speakers, you can access the entire Schedule of Events (including the speakers for each session) by clicking here. I won’t be speaking at that event, but law professors Doug Berman, Bernard Hibbitts, and Stephen Gillers will be. In addition, attorney Andrew J. Pincus will speak on the topic “Litigating in Today’s Supreme Court.”

“Gubernatorial appointments render Iowa one of only three states with all-male high court”: The National Center for State Courts issued this backgrounder today.

Update: An email that I’ve just received from the NCSC organization states, “The tabular information in the NCSC Backgrounder titled ‘Gubernatorial Appointments Render Iowa One of Only Three States with All-Male High Court’ contained significant errors. A corrected and accurate version will be released tomorrow, Feb. 25.” As a result, the link to the document provided above no longer works. Stay tuned, as I will link to the corrected version tomorrow once I’m alerted to its existence.

Upcoming CLE presentations: Over lunch on Tuesday, March 15, 2011, I will be one of the panelists at a Philadelphia Bar Association Antitrust Law Committee CLE Program titled “DeBeers: Class Action Settlements in Antitrust Cases.”

And exactly four months from today, on Friday, June 24, 2011, I will be one of six panelists speaking on the subject of “Opening Up: Can the Courts Be More Open and Better Understood?” at the Judicial Conference of the Fourth Circuit taking place in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia. The New Yorker‘s Jeffrey Toobin will also be participating as a speaker on that panel.

“Law Profs Urge Ethics Rules for Supreme Court Justices”: Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Attorney-Client Privilege Is a Two-Way Street, High Court Rules”: The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers, has posted online a news update written by Gina Passarella that begins, “Pennsylvania lawyers finally have some guidance from the state Supreme Court about the status of the attorney-client privilege after the justices ruled Thursday that it attaches not only to communication from the client to the lawyer, but to communications going the other way around as well.”

Yesterday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania consists of a majority opinion and two dissenting opinions (here and here).

“Goodwin Liu to Get Second Hearing”: David Ingram has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Feds Appeal Warrantless-Wiretapping Defeat”: At Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog, David Kravets has a post that begins, “The Obama administration is appealing the first — and likely only — lawsuit resulting in a ruling against the National Security Agency’s secret warrantless-surveillance program adopted in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks.”

And in other coverage, Bob Egelko reported in Sunday’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle that “U.S. appeals ruling that warrantless wiretap illegal.”

In commentary available online at Slate: Dahlia Lithwick has a jurisprudence essay entitled “Indefensible: Why the Obama administration changed its mind about the Defense of Marriage Act.”

And Arthur Allen has an essay entitled “The Real Problem With Vaccines: Our system for compensating injured children is hurting–and this week’s Supreme Court ruling doesn’t help.”

“Same-sex marriage: Courts expected to heed Obama move.” Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

And in today’s edition of The San Jose Mercury News, Howard Mintz reports that “Same-sex couples urge immediate resumption of gay marriages.”

“Judge Waits To Rule On Bid To Change Komisarjevsky Trial Site”: The Hartford Courant today contains an article that begins, “In rejecting concerns by defense attorneys last year that widespread pretrial publicity prejudiced prospective jurors in the first Cheshire home-invasion killings trial, Judge Jon C. Blue cited Connecticut’s unique jury selection system as a means to screen for bias.”

And today’s edition of The New Haven Register reports that “Komisarjevsky lawyers argue for venue change; ‘Pre-judgment of guilt’ found in expert’s survey.”

“Attorney general mum on refusal to defend gay unions ban”: The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review today contains an article that begins, “U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, speaking yesterday at Duquesne University, declined to address the Obama administration’s decision to stop defending a federal law banning same-sex marriage.”

“Is Anyone Watching?” Linda Greenhouse has this post at the “Opinionator” blog of The New York Times.

“Branstad taps three for Supreme Court; ‘The ones I chose were the best'”: This article appears today in The Des Moines Register.

Today’s edition of The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi contains an article headlined “Gov. selects King for state high court; Choice ‘was very clear,’ Barbour says of judicial appointee.”

And The Hartford Courant reports that “Malloy Nominates Lubbie Harper Jr. To State Supreme Court; Appellate Judge Would Fill Vacancy Left By Joette Katz.”

“Bill aims to bar gay marriage, review by court”: Today’s edition of The Des Moines Register contains an article that begins, “County recorders would be prohibited from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and the Iowa Supreme Court would be unable to rule on the issue under a bill sponsored by six conservative House Republicans.”