“A fact pattern reminiscent of a folk ballad deserves a judicial opinion in the same groove.” So observes Terry Baynes of Reuters, reporting on an opinion that Circuit Judge Ed Carnes issued today on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

“US judge hints Camp’s actions unlikely to undo his rulings; Strip club questions Camp’s impartiality in 2010 case, asks 11th Circuit for new judge”: In the April 3, 2012 issue of The Fulton County (Ga.) Daily Journal, Alyson M. Palmer had an article that begins, “A federal appeals court judge hinted at oral arguments that he thought the extracurricular activities of former federal Judge Jack Camp only rarely, if ever, should be cause to undo Camp’s rulings.”

Today, the Eleventh Circuit issued this ruling affirming the district court’s judgment rejecting a constitutional challenge to Spalding County, Georgia’s s ordinances prohibiting nude dancing where alcohol is sold.

“The Department of Justice cannot find a single authority * * * for the proposition that it can reassert jurisdiction over someone it had long ago unconditionally released from custody just because he once committed a federal crime.” The en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit today issued a ruling, by a vote of 10-to-6, that declared unconstitutional one aspect of the federal sex offender registration requirement imposed under the federal law known as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.

Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith wrote the majority opinion, which observes that “After the federal government has unconditionally let a person free, however, the fact that he once committed a crime is not a jurisdictional basis for subsequent regulation and possible criminal prosecution.” The majority opinion also includes a very interesting evaluation and rejection of the federal government’s Commerce Clause justification for the particular registration requirement at issue.

Today’s en banc Fifth Circuit ruling may not be the final word on this controversy. Because the appellate court has partially invalidated a federal law, the likelihood of U.S. Supreme Court review would seem high should the Solicitor General’s Office file a petition for writ of certiorari.

“Court finds Copyright Royalty Board unconstitutional”: Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

“Obama, Romney use ruling to rally core backers”: The Associated Press has this report.

“How The Health Care Ruling Might Affect Civil Rights”: This audio segment will appear on this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered.”

“The Supreme Court Leaks: The high court has a long and storied history of dishing on itself.” Jonathan Peters has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Affordable Care Act challenge at the 5th Circuit goes on”: John Council has this post today at the “Tex Parte Blog” of Texas Lawyer.

In today’s mail: I received a copy of the book “Inside Straight: Advice about Lawyering, In-House and Out, That Only the Internet Could Provide” by Mark Herrmann.

“Suit filed over naming La. chief justice”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A Louisiana Supreme Court justice is suing to block her colleagues from debating and voting on whether she is legally entitled to become the court’s next chief justice.”

“Supreme Court Has A Term To Remember”: This audio segment featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“Kiobel: Made simple.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”