“9/11 defenders send mixed message on whether to split up Guantanamo trial”: Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has this news update.

“The Supremes”: Yesterday at “The Paris Daily Review” blog, Joshua J. Friedman had a post that begins, “Here’s how I fell in love with the Supreme Court: riding a Boston city bus, earbuds in, listening to the justices’ voices.”

“In Blistering Dissent, Judge Mines Deep for Verbal Nuggets”: Justin Scheck has this post at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog.”

You can access today’s en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit containing the dissent in question at this link.

“Court Wary of Overturning Warrantless Spy Case Victory, But Might Have To”: David Kravets has this post at Wired.com’s “Threat Level” blog.

And The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court considers Bush wiretapping program.”

You can access via this link the audio of today’s oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

“Judge won’t bar Steve Jobs quotes from patent trial”: Dan Levine of Reuters has this report concerning a case at which Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner is serving as the trial judge. According to the article, “In a separate order on Thursday, Posner forbid Apple from arguing that jurors should be predisposed to favor Apple over Motorola if they like Apple products, or admire [Steve] Jobs.”

“Parents can be kidnappers: Court of Appeals.” Reuters has a report that begins, “A divided New York Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that custodial parents can be convicted of kidnapping their children.”

You can access yesterday’s 4-to-3 ruling of the New York State Court of Appeals — that state’s highest court — at this link. The majority opinion begins, “This case raises the question of whether it is possible for a parent who has custodial rights to a child to be guilty of kidnapping that child. We hold that it is possible . . . .”

“Judge considers Idaho anonymous comments lawsuit”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A lawyer for a newspaper website argued Friday that people should be allowed to post anonymous comments on its blogs without fear of being identified and then sued.”

“Court orders DOE to get its head out of the sand on waste fees”: Lawrence Hurley and Hannah Northey of Greenwire have an article that begins, “A federal appeals court today asked the Department of Energy to explain why it should be able to continue to collect fees for its nuclear waste fund despite the fact that there is no operating national repository.”

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

“Appeals court upholds Alameda County gun show ordinance”: Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News has this update.

My earlier coverage of today’s en banc Ninth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

Update: In other coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Calif. county avoids legal woes, allows gun shows.”

“Appeals court rules against ex-Gitmo prosecutor”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A divided federal appeals court has thrown out a lawsuit by the former chief military prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay, who was fired by the Library of Congress for publicly criticizing the Obama administration over Guantanamo detainees.”

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

“Judges Should Write Their Own Opinions”: Online at The New York Times, William Domnarski has an op-ed that begins, “There is a crisis in the federal appellate judiciary.”

“Can A Judge Order Individuals to Consent to Facebook Disclosing Their Status Updates?” Orin Kerr has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy” reporting on an appellate ruling that I previously noted here.

“Jerry Sandusky’s trial is a go: Superior Court denies motion to delay.” The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has this update reporting on an order that the Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued today.

And in other coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Pa. appeals court denies Sandusky’s delay request.”

“No matter how broad the scope of the Second Amendment–an issue that we leave for another day–it is clear that, as applied to Plaintiffs’ gun shows and as interpreted by the County, this regulation is permissible.” So rules the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today in the most recent installment of Nordyke v. King. You can access today’s en banc ruling at this link.

Sixth Circuit rejects taxpayer standing-based Establishment Clause challenge to U.S. Treasury Department’s commitment of federal dollars to American International Group, Inc., whose subsidiaries market and sell Sharia-compliant financing products: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit at this link.

“Gay marriage fight likely heads to high court”: This article appears today in The Boston Herald.

In today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Denial of benefits to same-sex couples overturned.”

Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, another federal court rules.”

The Washington Times reports that “Boston court hands same-sex marriage backers big victory.”

The Associated Press reports that “Gay married couples look to high court on benefits.”

Lastly, from NPR, yesterday evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment titled “Court Rules Against Key Part Of Gay Marriage Law” featuring Nina Totenberg. And today’s broadcast of “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “Court Rules Against Part Of Marriage Act.”

“Appeals court rejects VW/Audi sunroof settlement”: Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued yesterday.

“Know Your Supreme Court”: At the “ACSblog,” Linda Greenhouse has this post about her recently issued book, “The U.S. Supreme Court: A Very Short Introduction.”

“Court rules against Tenn. vet in colonoscopy case”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Years after thousands of veterans learned they may have been exposed to infections at government-run hospitals, many are still mired in legal battles seeking compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

The article reports on a non-precedential ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued on Monday of last week.

“Obama Tells Donors Health-Care Fight May Loom After Court Rules”: Bloomberg News has this report.