“Justices may eye pardons; Attorney for former inmates hopes to halt nullification effort”: This article appears today in The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi.

In Bashman news from Australia: The Age newspaper of Melbourne, Australia has a news update headlined “Robbers bash man, 80, flee empty handed.”

“Murder conviction stands for ‘Bird Rock Bandit'”: This article appears today in The San Diego Union-Tribune.

And The Associated Press reports that “CA Supreme Court reinstates murder conviction.”

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

“Sane defendants may be denied self-representation, court rules; The California Supreme Court unanimously decides that a person could be sane enough to be tried but too mentally ill to act as his own lawyer”: Maura Dolan has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

And in today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Court sets rule on mentally disturbed defendants.”

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

“GOP Seeks Big Changes In Federal Prison Sentences”: This audio segment appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“Go Shorty, It’s Your Birthday”: Astute “How Appealing” reader Richard Winger emails, in response to this post from earlier today:

Oklahoma State Senator Ralph Shortey’s SJR84 refers to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court. That student newspaper story you linked to got it wrong. I know this from (1) reading the bill on-line; (2) talking to Senator Shortey’s office at [phone number redacted].

The student newspaper doesn’t seem to let anyone either leave a comment or e-mail the reporter who wrote the story.

Mr. Winger appears to be correct, as the proposed legislation can be downloaded via this link.

Update: I originally linked to the mobile version of this article. Comments can be posted online at the “full version” of the article. Finally, the PDF version of today’s newspaper, in which the article appears on page one, can be accessed here.

“GW Law School to host four Supreme Court justices”: This article appeared yesterday in The GW Hatchet.

“Court to weigh restitution for child porn victim”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court in New Orleans has agreed to rehear two cases in which a victim of child pornography sought restitution from men who viewed sexually explicit photographs of her on the Internet.”

My earlier coverage of last week’s Fifth Circuit orders granting rehearing en banc can be accessed here.

But is she smarter than a 5th grader? According to an item posted online at The Harvard Law Record, “Former Dean Elena Kagan received several B’s during law school, especially her first year. She went on to become the first female dean of Harvard Law School, the U.S. Solicitor General, and the 112th Supreme Court Justice.”

And in other news, The HLRecord reports that “‘Survivor’ Contestant Returns to Campus.”

“CIA Claims Publication of Bin Laden Death Photos Would ‘Trigger Violence'”: David Kravets has this post at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog.

My most recent earlier coverage appears here.

“N.J. senator: State Supreme Court nominee’s confirmation chances ‘jeopardized’ by legal issues.” This article appears today in The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger. The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Financial improprieties by N.J. Supreme Court nominee’s family merits investigation.”

In related news coverage, Bloomberg News reports that “Christie Says Gay Supreme Court Nominee Won’t Rule on Same-Sex Marriage.”

“Bill would end recognition of Supreme Court’s authority”: The Daily O’Collegian, the student newspaper of Oklahoma State University, has an article that begins, “A bill introduced Monday in the Oklahoma state Senate would forbid the United States Supreme Court from reviewing Oklahoma laws.”

The sponsor of the legislation, Oklahoma State Senator Ralph Shortey, was most recently in the news for proposing a law to protect the food supply (see articles here and here).

“Moot Court Is Anything But”: Today’s edition of The Hoya, the student newspaper of Georgetown University, contains an article that begins, “Of the 78 cases brought before the Supreme Court since its term began in October, 73 had been argued beforehand — in a moot court at the Georgetown University Law Center.”

“WikiLeaks founder’s hearing set to boost supreme court audience; Case of Julian Assange likely to provide useful insight into impact of televising high-profile court hearings”: The Guardian (UK) has this report.

“Contraceptive mandate could face tough sledding in Supreme Court; The healthcare law’s mandate to require religious-affiliated employers to pay for contraception for their workers has prompted two lawsuits; If the matter gets to the Supreme Court, it will go before justices who recently affirmed == in a 9-0 ruling == that the 1st Amendment gives special leeway to religious employers”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Sarah Palin email hacker loses appeal”: Terry Baynes of Reuters has this report.

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

“Full D.C. Circuit Examines Use Of Machine Guns In Violent Crime”: Mike Scarcella has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Long-Dead Ohio Farmer, Roscoe Filburn, Plays Crucial Role in Health Care Fight”: Ariane de Vogue of ABC News has this report.

In today’s mail: An advance review copy of the book “The Last Justice,” by Anthony J. Franze.

And speaking of works of fiction involving U.S. Supreme Court Justices being gunned down, last month attorney David A. Wollin sent me a letter announcing his new e-book — “Death to the Bone” — which according to the author was inspired in part by a post (perhaps this one?) that the author read here at “How Appealing.”

“Why Jones is still less of a pro-privacy decision than most thought”: Tom Goldstein has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

“TN Supreme Court to decide role of Nashville sheriff’s office in immigration; Immigration enforcement is at heart of lawsuit”: Today’s edition of The Tennessean contains an article that begins, “The future role of the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office is in the hands of the Tennessee Supreme Court, which has been asked to weigh in on a federal lawsuit that challenges the authority of the department to enforce federal immigration law.”

“Supreme Court Fails to Communicate Effectively to Public, Law Scholar Argues”: Tony Mauro has this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Conviction and sentence upheld in Palin email case”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued today.

“Supreme Court has shown unity, but little guidance”: Robert Barnes will have this article Monday in The Washington Post.

“Liquor store run by Supreme Court nominee’s family settles with U.S. authorities over $2M in deposits”: The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger has this news update.

“Privacy, Technology And Law”: Law professor Barry Friedman has this essay in the Sunday Review section of today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Another misstep in the fight over crosses: The Senate should reject a House-passed bill that would allow religious symbols on war memorials.” This editorial appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Sotomayor discovers the delights of the CNMI”: Monday’s edition of The Saipan Tribune contains this article.

“Filibustering Nominees Must End”: This editorial appears today in The New York Times.

“Under the U.S. Supreme Court: State of the Union ducks healthcare.” Michael Kirkland of UPI has this report.

“California high court backs panel’s new state Senate districts; Even if a GOP-backed proposal to scrap the new plan qualifies for the November ballot, the map produced by a citizens commission is ‘clearly the most appropriate’ for the election, the court says”: Maura Dolan and Patrick McGreevy have this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

In today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Court rejects bid to hold up new voting districts.”

The Sacramento Bee reports that “Supreme Court validation of maps could give Democrats two-thirds Senate majority.”

The San Jose Mercury News reports that “State Supreme Court spurns Republican request to keep old maps.”

And Jason Hoppin of The Santa Cruz Sentinel reports that “State high court allows new political maps; Decision likely means Sen. Blakeslee won’t run.”

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

“New fire-expert analysis allowed in father’s 1990 arson conviction”: Emilie Lounsberry has this article today in The Philadelphia Inquirer reporting on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued yesterday.

“Evidence Mounts Against Justice Kagan For Recusal In ObamaCare Suit”: Law professor Ronald Rotunda has this essay at FoxNews.com.

“US Justice Sotomayor arrives on Saipan”: The Saipan Tribune has a news update that begins, “U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor received a warm island greeting and leis when she arrived on Saipan around 6:30pm Saturday. Sotomayor, the first Hispanic justice, is the first sitting U.S. Supreme Court justice to step foot in the CNMI.” Yesterday’s edition of the newspaper reported that “Fitial to meet with Sotomayor on Sunday.”

And as Pacific Business News has noted in articles that you can access here and here, Justice Sonia Sotomayor will take part in the University of Hawaii William S. Richardson School of Law‘s US Supreme Court Jurists-in-Residence Program before returning to Washington, DC.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit grants rehearing en banc to reconsider the amount of restitution that a district court may order a defendant convicted of possessing child pornography to pay to children depicted in the images: Today, the Fifth Circuit posted online this order issued Wednesday granting rehearing en banc in the case captioned United States v. Wright and this order issued Wednesday granting rehearing en banc in the case captioned In re: Amy Unknown.

The original three-judge panel’s opinion in the Wright case included a specially concurring opinion written by Circuit Judge W. Eugene Davis, in which all three judges on the panel joined, that began, “I write separately to express my disagreement with the recent holding by the In re Amy panel that section 2259 does not limit the victim’s recoverable losses to those proximately caused by the defendant’s offense and to urge the court to grant en banc review of that decision.”

My earlier coverage of the three-judge panel’s decision in Wright appears at this link. And earlier coverage of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in In re: Amy Unknown appears at this link.