“Appellate Court upholds former Gov. George Ryan’s conviction”: The Chicago Sun-Times has this news update.

And The Chicago Tribune has a news update headlined “Appeal denied, but Ryan lawyers vow: ‘It’s not over.’”

My earlier coverage of today’s Seventh Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Court bars enforcement of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell'”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this news update.

And Carol J. Williams of the Los Angeles Times has a blog post titled “Court ends enforcement of ban on openly gay military service.”

“Feds urge court to let prison medicate Loughner”: The Associated Press has this report.

You can access at this link the federal government’s filing today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

“Court orders immediate halt to gay military ban”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court has barred further enforcement of the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members.”

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

“Chicago Ban on Firing Ranges Blocked in Preliminary Appeals Court Ruling”: Bloomberg News has this report.

My earlier coverage of today’s Seventh Circuit ruling appears two posts below.

“Appeals court: US can’t force anti-sex-work pledge.” The Associated Press has this report.

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

Chicago misses avoiding adverse Seventh Circuit gun range ruling by that much: Today’s edition of The Chicago Tribune contains an article headlined “Council set to OK firing ranges, with limits; Plan to legalize practice shooting facilities designed to head off federal court ruling against city” that begins, “Firing ranges could soon be legal inside Chicago city limits as Mayor Rahm Emanuel is fast-tracking a plan designed to head off a federal court decision that could force the city to accept them. A panel of aldermen Tuesday recommended approval of the ordinance, which would permit ranges, but with serious restrictions. The City Council is expected to follow suit at its Wednesday meeting.”

And The Chicago Sun-Times reports today that “City Council panel OKs gun range ordinance.”

If Chicago’s goal in authorizing gun ranges within city limits was intended to avoid an adverse Seventh Circuit ruling, the effort has not achieved its desired result. Today a three-judge panel issued this ruling holding that plaintiffs are entitled to the entry of a preliminary injunction under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution enjoining enforcement of Chicago ordinances that condition gun possession on gun range training but simultaneously forbid gun range training everywhere in the city.

“Ryan loses appeal to get out of jail”: Chicago’s ABC affiliate WLS-TV has a news report that begins, “A judge has rejected an appeal by former governor George Ryan to be released from prison.”

Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook wrote today’s ruling on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Received in last Friday’s mail: Just in time for the holiday weekend, I received a copy of the newly published Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage (Third Edition) by Bryan A. Garner.

Do you oppose prostitution? The majority on a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today issued a ruling that strikes down as unconstitutional a provision of a federal statute that denies federal monetary assistance in the fight against AIDS to any organization “that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.”

According to the majority opinion, this requirement constitutes an unconstitutional condition because “[c]ompelling speech as a condition of receiving a government benefit cannot be squared with the First Amendment.” The majority opinion also condemned the requirement as “viewpoint-based, because it requires recipients to take the government’s side on a particular issue. It is well established that viewpoint-based intrusions on free speech offend the First Amendment.”

According to the dissenting opinion, today’s Second Circuit ruling conflicts with a ruling that the D.C. Circuit issued in 2007. For that and other reasons, this case may present a strong candidate for U.S. Supreme Court review should the federal government so request.