Happy New Year! Wishing “How Appealing” readers all the best in 2012. Believe it or not, this blog will turn ten years old on May 6, 2012.

“Roberts defends Supreme Court colleagues on recusal issue”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this news update.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a blog post titled “Chief Justice Roberts says high court not exempt from ethics rules.”

Joan Biskupic of USA Today has a news update headlined “Chief Justice defends Supreme Court’s recusal policy.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has a news update headlined “Chief Justice Responds to Recusal Calls in Health-Care Case.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google News.

Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Chief justice addresses ethics and recusal questions in year-end report.”

Ariane de Vogue of ABC News has a blog post titled “Chief Justice Roberts Responds to Judicial Ethics Critics.”

The Associated Press reports that “Chief justice defends court’s impartiality.”

Seth Stern of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Chief Justice Offers Confidence in Recusals.”

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Roberts defends justices on healthcare recusal issue.”

At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “In Annual Report, Roberts Defends Supreme Court Ethics Procedures.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “A defense of Justices’ ethics.”

You can access at this link the “2011 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary” that Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. issued this evening.

“Michigan Supreme Court orders Rosa Parks estate returned to longtime friend, institute”: David Ashenfelter has this article today in The Detroit Free Press.

“Court wisely draws a line of privacy; Owner goes too far when he installed a camera”: Today’s edition of The Des Moines Register contains an editorial that begins, “If a tree falls in the forest when no one is present, does it make a sound? If a hidden camera is installed in a bathroom but isn’t used, has anyone’s privacy been invaded? The first question is a matter of philosophy or physics, the second is a matter of law. The Iowa Supreme Court’s answer is yes, it is possible to invade someone’s privacy by installing a camera in a bathroom even if there is no evidence it was used.”

You can access the rulings that the Supreme Court of Iowa issued two Fridays ago in two related cases here and here.

“Citing Gableman legal work, DA asks justices to reopen bargaining case”: Patrick Marley of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has a news update that begins, “The Dane County district attorney asked the state Supreme Court on Friday to reopen this summer’s collective bargaining case because he said Justice Michael Gableman was wrong to participate in the matter.”

The Wisconsin State Journal has a news update headlined “Ozanne asks high court to vacate ruling on collective bargaining law.”

And The Associated Press reports that “DA asks Wis. Supreme Court to reopen union lawsuit.”

The Wisconsin State Journal has posted online the motion for recusal, the memorandum of law in support thereof, and a related affidavit.

“Supreme Court upholds state ban on corporation spending”: The Billings Gazette has this news update.

The Associated Press reports that “MT court restores corporate campaign spending ban.”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “A Citizens United sequel: different result.”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Eugene Volokh has a post titled “Montana Supreme Court vs. the United States Supreme Court.”

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

“Holder’s Voting Rights Gamble: The Supreme Court’s voter ID showdown.” Law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Analysis: Health care’s legal, political fate.” Lyle Denniston has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Gary Haugen describes life on death row; He slams governor for granting reprieve”: This article appears today in The Statesman Journal of Salem, Oregon.

“Janine Orie ordered to stand trial”: Today’s edition of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review contains an article that begins, “The former chief law clerk for state Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin told a judge Thursday that she did political work on state time — from speech writing to working polls — at the direction of the justice’s sister.”

And in today’s edition of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Paula Reed Ward has an article headlined “‘I knew it was wrong,’ former law clerk says; Orie sister accused of using state staff for judge campaign.”

“The ‘People’s Veto’: A way to keep the courts in check.” Thomas Donnelly has this essay online at The Washington Post.

“Telecom customers may sue government over wiretapping, court says; An appellate panel reinstates a lawsuit against the federal government over post-9/11 warrantless wiretapping and sends the case back to U.S. district court for trial”: Carol J. Williams will have this article Friday in The Los Angeles Times.

And at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog, David Kravets has a post titled “Court Revives NSA Dragnet Surveillance Case.”

My earlier coverage of today’s three related Ninth Circuit rulings (rulings that can be accessed here, here, and here) appears at this link.

“Heller Attorneys Awarded $1.1M in Fees, One-Third of Their Request”: Sam Skolnik has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

And The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Judge orders D.C. to pay $1.1 million in legal fees for handgun ownership lawsuit.”

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

“When the police find a plastic baggie full of suspected drugs attached to a man’s penis, does it violate the Fourth Amendment for the police to cut it off with a knife?” So begins a post at “walshslaw” reporting on a ruling that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued today.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, the “it” that was cut off was the baggie, and not the man’s penis.

Update: At “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Orin Kerr has a post titled “Fourth Circuit Overturns Conviction Because Officer Used A Knife to Remove the Crack Tied Around An Arrestee’s Private Parts.”

And “walshslaw” has a follow-up post titled “How likely is it that a police officer will mistakenly cut when using a knife to remove a drug-containing baggie tied around a particular male body part?”

“DC ordered to pay $1M in historic gun case”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The District of Columbia has been ordered to pay more than $1 million in attorneys’ fees as a result of a historic gun case that was ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia at this link.

“2011: The Year Intellectual Property Trumped Civil Liberties.” David Kravets has this post today at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog.

“U.S. court upholds telecom immunity for surveillance”: Dan Levine of Reuters has a report that begins, “A U.S. appeals panel on Thursday upheld immunity for telecom companies that assist the U.S. government in conducting surveillance of American citizens.”

The same three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued three separate decisions on three related appeals today, and you can access those three rulings here, here, and here.

Update: In other coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Federal court revives government wiretapping suit.”

“California Supreme Court allows redevelopment money grab”: Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News has this update.

Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has a blog post titled “State Supreme Court upholds abolition of redevelopment agencies.”

The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update headlined “State wins right to abolish redevelopment agencies.”

The San Diego Union-Tribune has a news update headlined “Redevelopment dead, court says; California Supreme Court says local agencies can’t remain by paying state.”

The Sacramento Bee has a blog post titled “California high court says state can eliminate redevelopment.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Court splits decision over redevelopment funding.”

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

“King Newt takes on the judges”: Roger Pilon has this op-ed today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

“Alabama voters often in the dark on judicial races”: This article appears today in The Birmingham News.

“Man charged with felony for reading wife’s e-mail ready to take case to Michigan Supreme Court”: Today’s edition of The Detroit Free Press contains an article that begins, “A Rochester Hills man charged with a five-year felony for reading his wife’s e-mail pledged Wednesday to take the matter to the state’s highest court after a lower court refused to dismiss the charge.”

And The Daily Tribune of Mount Clemens, Michigan reported yesterday that “E-mail snooper loses appellate bid.”

You can access Tuesday’s unpublished ruling of the Michigan Court of Appeals at this link.

“Gingrich’s plan on courts would face resistance”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

“Gov. Jerry Brown weighs clemency petition for a grandmother; Brown is being asked to commute the 15-year-to-life sentence of Shirley Ree Smith, convicted of killing her grandchild; An appeals court had overturned her conviction; the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated it”: Maura Dolan has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Immigration laws pose a test of states’ rights in Supreme Court; Strict new immigration laws in six states have been partially blocked by lower courts, but they are expected to receive a more favorable ruling by the Supreme Court”: David G. Savage and Carol J. Williams will have this article Thursday in The Los Angeles Times.

“What We Think About When We Think About the Court”: Linda Greenhouse has this post at the “Opinionator” blog of The New York Times.

Received in today’s mail: A copy of the book “Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy,” written by Mark Herrmann and David B. Alden.

“Jury awards $100,000 in torso pictures case; Photos were published in Riverfront Times; woman’s lawyers had sought millions”: This article appeared in the November 17, 2009 issue of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issue a ruling that agreed with the woman’s argument that she was entitled to a new trial on the issue of punitive damages.

“At U. of Iowa College of Law, an Allegation of Political Hiring”: Dan Slater had this post at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog” back in January 2009. Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued this ruling in the case.

“Appeals court: Ark. can’t stop desegregation funds.” The AP has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued today.

“Appeals court upholds convictions in Fort Dix plot”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued today.

“This time, the 9th Circuit’s ‘judicial activists’ got it right”: Columnist George F. Will has this essay today.

“Federal court upholds ruling that billionaire investor Phillip Anschutz owed $94 million in taxes”: This article appears today in The Denver Post reporting on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued yesterday.

“Overturning of Prop. 13 sought in lawsuit”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

“Gingrich, Perry dismiss ability of courts to end anti-abortion law”: The Hill has a report that begins, “GOP presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry said the Supreme Court should not be able to challenge anti-abortion measures during a GOP candidates’ forum Tuesday night.”

“County says Supreme Court should hear prayer case”: Today’s edition of The Winston-Salem Journal contains an article that begins, “Forsyth County has filed its final brief in its effort to have the U.S. Supreme Court take up its appeal of a lower court’s ruling against sectarian prayers at meetings of the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners.”