“Blackwater suit ends 7 years after Fallujah deaths”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Chevron’s Bid to Block Ecuadorean Asset Collection Denied”: Bloomberg News has this report.

“Drug-Sniffing Dog Will Get His Day At U.S. Supreme Court”: Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post has this report.

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Drug-Sniffing Dogs Bring U.S. High Court Scrutiny in Search-Warrant Case.”

En banc Ninth Circuit holds that death threats addressed to corporations aren’t illegal because corporations aren’t people for purposes of the federal criminal statute at issue: You can access today’s 64-page ruling of an 11-judge en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link. The ruling consists of a majority opinion, a concurring opinion, two opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part, and a dissenting opinion.

The original three-judge panel’s divided opinion in this case issued in August 2010 while I was away on vacation, and thus this blog’s archives lack any coverage of that ruling. At that time, Carol J. Williams of The Los Angeles Times had an article headlined “9th Circuit overturns conviction of man who made Super Bowl threats; The panel found that Kurt Havelock wasn’t guilty of mailing threatening communications to any individual person when he sent letters to media organizations saying he planned to kill fans in 2008.” Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reported that “Manifesto in aborted Super Bowl rampage was not criminal, court rules; In a case involving a planned and then abandoned shooting spree at the 2008 Super Bowl, a federal appeals court ruled Monday that the would-be shooter’s manifesto — mailed to the media — was not criminal because it was not personal.” And David Kravets had a post titled “Court: Death Threats Addressed to Corporations Aren’t Illegal” at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog.

“Bob Menendez denies judge block reports”: Politico.com has this report.

In today’s mail: A copy of the book “Constitution 3.0: Freedom and Technological Change,” an anthology edited by Jeffrey Rosen and Benjamin Wittes.

“Supreme Court to decide drug-detecting dog sniff case”: James Vicini of Reuters has this report.

The Associated Press reports that “Court to hear case of Franky the drug dog.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Two new cases granted.”

You can access today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.

Second Circuit launches New Year’s offensive to be the most efficient federal appellate court in disposing of pending cases: A longtime reader emails:

We all get some dates wrong when the year changes, and sometimes they lead to amusing results. Today’s decision from the Second Circuit, for example, was argued December 13, 2012, and decided on January 6, 2012. Must be a new record!

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit at this link. Not surprisingly, this extreme example of judicial efficiency is attributed to Judge “Per Curiam.”

Update: A version of the opinion with the oral argument date corrected can now be accessed here.

Is that 700 Oxycodone pills in your underwear or are you just happy to see me? In today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article headlined “Court OKs airport groin searches for drugs.”

And SeattlePI.com reports that “Court OKs Sea-Tac crotch search; Passenger arrested with 700 Oxycodone pills in undies.”

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

“WikiLeaks Supporters Lose Court Bid to Protect Twitter Records”: Kim Zetter has this post at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog.

“SJC orders state to cover legal immigrants”: Today’s edition of The Boston Globe contains an article that begins, “Massachusetts lawmakers must quickly come up with about $150 million to provide health insurance to tens of thousands of legal immigrants, after the state’s highest court ruled yesterday that they were illegally excluded from subsidized coverage available to other residents.”

Today’s edition of The Boston Herald contains an article headlined “Court: Legal immigrants qualify for health care.”

The Associated Press reports that “Massachusetts cannot prevent thousands of legal immigrants from joining Commonwealth Care, court rules.”

And Northeastern University has issued a news release headlined “SJC rules for legal immigrants represented by Northeastern professor in health coverage case.”

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

“State Supreme Court to rule on time limits in molestation cases; During oral arguments at the California Supreme Court, several justices appear skeptical about allowing flexible deadlines for lawsuits against those who knew about abuse and didn’t stop it”: Maura Dolan has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Families of dead Blackwater contractors settle suit”: This article appears today in The Virginian-Pilot.

“Texas Case Could Lead to changes in Voting Rights Act”: Ariane de Vogue of ABC News has this report.

And yesterday in The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, columnist Linda P. Campbell had an op-ed entitled “Texas redistricting brief argues for demise of Voting Rights Act.”

“W.House mum over possible appointment legal advice”: Reuters has a report that begins, “The White House on Thursday refused to say whether lawyers at the U.S. Justice Department gave the green light to President Barack Obama’s controversial appointments to two agencies but experts said the department almost certainly did provide advice.”

And online at The Weekly Standard, Adam J. White has a lengthy blog post titled “An Unconstitutional Appointment to an Unconstitutional Office.”

Update: At “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Jonathan H. Adler links to additional commentary in a post titled “Recess Appointment Round-Up.”

“After Ontario Superior Court judge’s slip-up, appeal seeks new trial for ‘Mr. Guilty'”: In today’s edition of The Toronto Globe and Mail, Kirk Makin has an article that begins, “Shortly before a Toronto jury left the courtroom to start deliberations at Prinze Wilson’s cocaine-trafficking trial last spring, Madam Justice Faye McWatt of the Ontario Superior Court stressed the need to respect his presumption of innocence. ‘It is only defeated if, and when, Crown counsel has satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Guilty — I’m sorry, that Mr. Wilson — is guilty of the crime charged,’ Judge McWatt said.”

“Sen. Menendez blocking federal judge’s appointment to powerful court of appeals”: The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger has this news update.

“Sept. 11 Case A Litmus Test For Military Commissions”: This audio segment appeared on yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“State’s top court refuses to hear Apple’s tax case”: Bob Egelko has this article today in The San Francisco Chronicle.

“Nicole Richie’s Cursing May Spur Top Court to Free Broadcasters”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

“Gableman should have recused himself from cases; State Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman’s relationship with a law firm raised enough questions to warrant recusal in some cases”: This editorial will appear Friday in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The newspaper will also contain an op-ed by Rick Esenberg entitled “Critics of Gableman haven’t made their case.”

“Lawyers, courts see weaknesses in defense of Obama’s healthcare law”: Sam Baker has this blog post online at The Hill.

“Judicial Ethics and the Supreme Court”: This editorial will appear Friday in The New York Times.

“SCOTUS expected to weigh Montana campaign finance appeal”: Politico.com has this report.

“Supreme Court to examine Texas redistricting”: Joan Biskupic will have this article Friday in USA Today.

“Argument preview: 4-letter words and TV, Round II.” Lyle Denniston has this post this evening at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Foreign Money Swaying U.S. Voters?” You can access this “Room for Debate” discussion online at The New York Times.

“In Act of Defiance, Democrat Stalls Obama Choice for Court”: Friday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an article that begins, “When a Democratic president nominates a federal judge from a state with two Democratic senators — and the Senate itself is controlled by Democrats — a speedy confirmation hearing typically follows.”

“Louboutin red-sole trademark case: color war at the 2nd Circuit!” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report.

“CA court mulls window for old clergy abuse claims”: The Associated Press has an updated report that begins, “California’s highest court heard a precedent-setting case Thursday that could expose Roman Catholic dioceses in the state to another round of clergy abuse lawsuits.”

“Feds Want Judge to Force Suspect to Give Up Laptop Password”: David Kravets has this post today at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog.

“Reversal of Fortune: A crusading lawyer helped Ecuadorans secure a huge environmental judgment against Chevron; But did he go too far?” I’m pleased to report that The New Yorker is now providing free access to the full text of this article, written by Patrick Radden Keefe, which appears in the January 9, 2012 issue of that magazine.

“Rick Santorum Jokes About Sending Ninth Circuit Judges To Guam”: Amanda Terkel of The Huffington Post has this report.

“With Ecuadorean plaintiffs poised to collect, Chevron has Plan B”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report.

“Chief Justice John Roberts’ Defense Of Supreme Court Ethics Doesn’t Soothe Critics”: Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post has this report.