“High court urged to allow jury to decide alienation of affection case”: This article appears today in The Rapid City Journal.

“Supreme Court declines to make it harder to introduce eyewitness testimony at trials”: Robert Barnes will have this article Thursday in The Washington Post.

In Thursday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage will have an article headlined “Supreme Court rejects curbs on eyewitness testimony at trials; In an 8-1 decision, the high court says that judges should not be allowed to consider the reliability of all eyewitness testimony before trials.”

In Thursday’s edition of USA Today, Joan Biskupic will have an article headlined “Judges don’t have to screen witnesses, court rules.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court says no to new rule on eyewitness testimony; The lawyer for a convicted New Hampshire man had asked the Supreme Court to establish an expanded rule to help prevent unreliable eyewitness testimony at criminal trials.”

James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court rejects special review of eyewitness testimony.”

And Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court backs eyewitness identification with 8-1 ruling.”

“9th Circuit asks state court to weigh in on Whopper spit suit”: Terry Baynes of Reuters has this report.

And SeattlePI.com reports that “Case of spit in cop’s Whopper headed to state Supreme Court.”

My earlier coverage of today’s Ninth Circuit order appears at this link.

“Voting in Plain Sight”: Linda Greenhouse has this post at the “Opinionator” blog of The New York Times.

“Supreme Court wrestles with medical leave case”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The Supreme Court wrestled Wednesday with how a federal law that grants workers time off for family and medical reasons applies to state government workers in a case that could affect millions of them.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Md., No. 10-1016.

“Several justices seem to support FCC decency rules”: Tony Mauro has this news analysis online at the First Amendment Center.

“See No Evil: Justice Clarence Thomas rehabilitates an eyewitness who may not have seen anything.” Law professor Brandon L. Garrett has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Supreme Court: Churches Can’t Be Sued By Ministers For Employment Discrimination.” Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post has this report.

“Phlegm glob” that Burger King employee with a criminal record placed on Whopper with cheese served to police officer has caused the Ninth Circuit to certify a question of law to the Washington State Supreme Court: You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

The question certified to Washington State’s highest court is: “Does the Washington Product Liability Act permit relief for emotional distress damages, in the absence of physical injury, caused to the direct purchaser by being served and touching, but not consuming, a contaminated food product?”

“U.S. High Court Rejects Limits on Witness-ID Testimony”: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion recap: Faith in the jury’s capacity.”

“Justices Grant Leeway to Churches in Job Bias Laws”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Supreme Court: Discrimination laws do not protect certain employees of religious groups.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a blog post titled “Supreme Court: Church-state separation extends to religious schools.”

Joan Biskupic of USA Today has a news update headlined “Court: Certain religious employees can’t sue for job bias.”

James Vicini of Reuters has an article headlined “Supreme Court: ministers can’t sue churches for bias.”

At the “School Law” blog of Education Week, Mark Walsh has a post titled “Supreme Court Backs Church in Teacher-Employment Case.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion recap: A solid ‘ministerial exception.’”

“Md. man’s leave lawsuit lands in Supreme Court”: The Associated Press has this report.

Access online today’s opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued three decisions in argued cases.

1. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court in Perry v. New Hampshire, No. 10-8974. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court in Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid, No. 10-507. Justice Antonin Scalia issued an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, which Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined.,You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, No. 10-553. Justice Thomas issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Alito issued a concurring opinion, in which Justice Elena Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press has reports headlined “Court:Judges cannot get involved in church dispute” and “Court rules against man convicted by eyewitness ID.”

“What If Obama Loses? Imagining the consequences of a GOP victory.” That’s the cover story in the January/February 2012 issue of Washington Monthly magazine. Therein, Dahlia Lithwick has an article headlined “The Courts: The conservative takeover will be complete.”

“Is The Obama Admin Trying To Box In Scalia On The Health Care Mandate?” TPMDC has this news analysis.

“Texas can enforce sonogram law, appeals court says”: Chuck Lindell has this article today in The Austin American-Statesman.

And The San Antonio Express-News reports today that “Sonogram statute is unblocked by court; Appellate panel’s decision is cheered by anti-abortion forces.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Fifth Circuit ruling appears here and here.

“Melvin urged to quit Supreme Court”: The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review contains this article today.

“Court upholds injunction against Shariah law ban in Oklahoma courts”: This article appears today in The Tulsa World.

The Los Angeles Times reports today that “Appeals court affirms order blocking Oklahoma sharia law ban; A federal appeals court upholds a 2010 ruling preventing the implementation of an Oklahoma constitutional amendment that would bar judges from considering international or Islamic law in decisions.”

The Denver Post reports that “Oklahoma’s ban on Islamic law blocked by appeals court.”

Terry Baynes of Reuters reports that “Court refuses to unblock Oklahoma ban on Islamic law.”

Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Sharia.”

And yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Court Strikes Down Okla. Sharia Ban.”

My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Tenth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Court Rejects Suit By Injured Inmate”: Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal will have this article Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion recap: No new Bivens remedy.”

“High Court Reverses Conviction in Killings”: Adam Liptak will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a blog post titled “Supreme Court orders new trial for convicted New Orleans killer.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion recap: Blunt memo to the DA.”

“Ifs, Ands, and Butts: The Supreme Court gets the full-monty treatment.” Dahlia Lithwick has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

“TV Decency Is a Puzzler For Justices”: Adam Liptak will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.

In Wednesday’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes will have an article headlined “Supreme Court weighs technology, culture in FCC power to monitor airwaves.”

In Wednesday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage will have an article headlined “Supreme Court appears unlikely to ease broadcast decency rules; During arguments in FCC vs. Fox TV, the justices indicate they want the public airwaves to remain free of cursing, nudity and sex scenes during prime time.”

Joan Biskupic of USA Today has a news update headlined “Top justices grapple with FCC filters on cursing, nudity.”

In Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin will have an article headlined “Justices Voice Support for Broadcast-TV Decency.”

Wednesday’s edition of The Washington Times will contain an article headlined “Supreme Court mulls profanity, nudity on network TV.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Lawyer makes startling argument in Supreme Court hearing on FCC; A lawyer arguing that the FCC has gone overboard in its regulation of broadcast nudity and language directed the justices’ attention to the bare buttocks of statues in the Supreme Court; The justices are considering whether FCC rules are inconsistent.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “TV Indecency Crackdown by FCC Gets Support at High Court.”

Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal reports that “In indecency case, government faces tough path to victory.”

Ariane de Vogue of ABC News has a blog post titled “Supreme Court Hearing on Indecency Leaves One Justice Blushing.”

Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post reports that “Supreme Court Frets Over TV’s Devolving Standards of Decency.”

And on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment entitled “High Court Hears Arguments In FCC Case.”

“Justices Weigh Public-Sector Unions’ Political Fees”: Mark Walsh has this post at the “School Law” blog of Education Week.

“GOP: Corporate donation ban unconstitutional.” Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this blog post.

“Supreme Court denies inmate’s request for lawsuit over prison injury”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers has this report.

“Indecency on TV: Supreme Court reluctant to ease profanity rules.” David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has this blog post.

And James Vicini of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices question why some TV nudity allowed.”

“U.S. Supreme Court sets aside conviction in 1995 massacre”: The Times-Picayune of New Orleans has this news update.

And Joan Biskupic of USA Today has a news update headlined “Supreme Court overturns New Orleans man’s murder conviction.”

“Moore’s funding an issue”: Today’s edition of The Montgomery Advertiser contains an editorial that begins, “Perennial political candidate Roy Moore has two big problems in his race to become chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. The first problem is that he doesn’t have many campaign donors. The second problem is that his biggest donor — who supplied almost two-thirds of all the money Moore had raised through December — has some strange ideas.”

“Ga. court upholds ruling in Jewell suit”: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a news update that begins, “The Georgia Supreme Court on Monday unanimously upheld a previous court ruling dismissing a lawsuit filed by survivors of Richard Jewell against The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.”

“PMC: Orie Melvin Case Demands Swift Action and Long Term Reform.” The organization Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts issued this news release today.

“Appeals court unblocks Texas abortion law”: Terry Baynes of Reuters has this report.

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

“Court: Okla. ban on Islamic law unconstitutional.” The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued today.

Update: In other coverage, The Denver Post reports that “10th Circuit upholds ruling blocking Shariah law ban.”

“High court weighs policy against curse words on TV”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this updated report.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Many options on TV rules.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., No. 10-1293.

“Gonzalez sworn in as new justice; Latino justice hailed for improving court access to poor”: This article appears today in The Olympian of Olympia, Washington.

A twist on the “appellate battlefield” analogy: No doubt many readers will be familiar with the saying that “Appellate judges sit above the fray as the battle unfolds beneath and when the smoke clears and the dust settles, they descend from their lofty perches and shoot the wounded.”

Today, Sixth Circuit Judge Raymond M.Kethledge has issued a dissenting opinion that begins as follows:

Every trial presents its own field of maneuver, with issues rising up in different places on the terrain. Some issues reach commanding heights, others are just a gentle rise; some have evidence arrayed densely on each side, others have evidence more thin. Whatever the layout, the district court knows the ground better than we do. Its understanding comes from the front lines, whereas we are back in a headquarters tent. And thus we defer a great deal to the district court’s judgment as to whether a particular piece of evidence aligns with one issue, or another, or instead does not belong on the field at all.

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