“Auction of Unabomber mementos wraps up”: The AP has this report.

“Calif’s top court refuses to limit pimp definition”: The Associated Press has this report.

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

“Court rules parking lot a highway under NY law”: The Associated Press has this report on a 4-3 ruling that the New York State Court of Appeals — that state’s highest court — issued today.

“Brentwood man cleared to sue over cat’s shooting”: In today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “The market value of a stray cat with a crippling pellet wound is zero, or close to it. But for his devoted owner in Brentwood, a male tabby named Pumkin was well worth the tens of thousands of dollars it took to save his life and restore some of his mobility. Now a state appeals court has issued a first-of-its-kind decision in California, ruling that whoever shot Pumkin can be required to pay his medical expenses.”

You can access Tuesday’s ruling of California’s Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District at this link.

California Supreme Court to “Pimp Your Ride“? At 1 p.m. eastern time today, the Supreme Court of California is scheduled to issue its ruling in People v. Zambia, a case that presents the following questions:

(1) Does the offense of pandering require the specific intent to encourage another person to become a prostitute?; and

(2) Can a defendant be convicted of pandering for offering to act as a pimp for a woman who appears to be already working as a prostitute?

Once the decision is posted online, you can access it via this link.

Update: By a vote of 5-2, today’s ruling of California’s highest court does not appear to contain good news for pimps.

Majority on divided three-judge Second Circuit panel upholds the legality of a New York City Public Schools regulation prohibiting the use of school facilities by outside groups outside of school hours for “religious worship services”: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link.

“Court tackles health care law; Key Obama initiative on local docket”: The Cincinnati Enquirer contains this article today.

Last night, I had this post containing additional news coverage and links to the audio of the oral argument.

“Second Appellate Panel Hears Arguments on Health Care Law”: This article will appear Thursday in The New York Times.

The Associated Press reports that “Obama health overhaul argued in Ohio federal court.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Obama Health-Care Law Goes Before Second of at Least Three Appeals Courts.”

Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Federal court expresses concern over health care reform law.”

Dow Jones Newswires report that “Judges Give Health Overhaul Mixed Reception.”

Politico.com reports that “Appeals court questions lawsuit over plaintiff’s insurance status.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has posted the audio of today’s oral argument online in three parts: Opening Remarks; Argument on the Government’s motion to dismiss; and Argument on the merits.

“Legal Groups Publish Guide to Becoming a Judge”: David Ingram has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“The Goodwin Liu nomination: Impaired judgment; His derailed judicial appointment sends a chilling message.” Ian Millhiser has this op-ed today in The Los Angeles Times.

“The Lawfulness of Health-Care Reform”: Law professor Akhil Reed Amar has posted this essay online at SSRN.

“Justice Alito Cast 2009 Vote in ABC Case When His Family Held Disney Stock”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Ward Churchill’s appeal to win back job to be heard by state high court”: The Denver Post contains this article today.

“Obama Health-Care Law Goes to Appeals Court”: Bloomberg News has a report that begins, “President Barack Obama’s health-care law, including its mandate that most Americans obtain insurance, goes before a U.S. appeals court, the second of at least three such panels that will consider the act’s constitutionality.”

“Supreme Court rejects suit against John Ashcroft; The justices throw out a lawsuit by Abdullah Kidd, who says he was held as a material witness under improper motives; The ruling broadens protections for government officials, including the former attorney general”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

And today in The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “Top Court Rules for Former Attorney General.”