“Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor offered advice to Cicero-North Syracuse graduates”: The Post-Standard of Syracuse, New York has this news update.

“A Lifeline for Minorities, Catholic Schools Retrench”: Today’s edition of The New York Times contains an article that begins, “Sonia Sotomayor lives in Washington, but she has never forgotten her roots in the Bronx.”

“The inherent conflict for lawyers who oppose Supreme Court review”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report about an article written by Fourth Circuit judicial law clerk Aaron Tang titled “The Ethics of Opposing Certiorari Before the Supreme Court.”

“Remarks made at Penn Law by federal judge are under review; A complaint was lodged against Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Edith Jones for judicial misconduct”: The Daily Pennsylvanian has this report.

“Key judge’s take on clean-power mandates sparks legal debate”: Hannah Northey and Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire have an article that begins, “An influential federal judge splashed fuel last week on an already-raging argument over states’ clean energy mandates in a ruling that questioned the constitutionality of Michigan’s renewable portfolio standard.”

“Who Will Care For ‘Baby Veronica’?” This audio segment appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Tell Me More.”

“Going Courtless: The NSA searches its mass database of phone records without real judicial oversight; That’s unacceptable.” William Saletan has this essay online at Slate.

“Scalia criticizes ‘moralist’ judges”: The Citizen-Times of Asheville, North Carolina has this news update.

“We All Lose When the Supreme Court Procrastinates; Court-watchers thought one of the big decisions would come down Thursday; Instead, almost all the high-profile ones will be handed down next week”: Andrew Cohen has this essay online today at The Atlantic.

“Another Liberal Writer Realizes Clarence Thomas Is Actually a Principled Legal Conservative”: Damon W. Root has this post today at Reason.com’s “Hit & Run” blog.

“U.S. court upholds radio host’s conviction for threats to judges”: Nate Raymond of Reuters has this report.

My earlier coverage of today’s Second Circuit ruling appears in the post immediately below.

“On June 2, 2009, Harold Turner published a blog post declaring that three Seventh Circuit judges deserved to die for their recent decision that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states”: So begins the majority opinion that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today in United States v. Turner.

The final paragraph of the majority opinion’s introduction states:

A jury convicted Turner of threatening to assault or murder Judges Frank Easterbrook, William Bauer, and Richard Posner with the intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with them in the performance of their duties or to retaliate against them on account of their performance of official duties. This appeal presents several issues for our review, including whether the jury’s verdict was supported by sufficient evidence of a true threat of violence. We hold that the evidence was sufficient, that the jury was properly instructed regarding a ‘true threat,’ and that Turner was not prejudiced by any error. We affirm.

Circuit Judge Debra Ann Livingston wrote the majority opinion, in which U.S. District Judge Brian M. Cogan (E.D.N.Y.), sitting by designation, joined.

Circuit Judge Rosemary S. Pooler issued a dissenting opinion, which begins:

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion relating to the sufficiency of the evidence, because I find that, as a matter of law, Turner’s speech was not a true threat under 18 U.S.C. sec. 115(a)(1)(B) and the First Amendment.

Although these circumstances — a three-judge panel’s ruling in which two active circuit judges disagree and the deciding vote is provided by a district judge sitting by designation — ordinarily suggest a good likelihood of rehearing en banc, the fact that this appeal is pending in the Second Circuit (which very rarely grants rehearing en banc) and involves what could be viewed as a distasteful subject matter for judges (i.e., death threats against them) could combine to doom any chance at rehearing en banc in this case.

“At U.S. high court, high anxiety over big cases”: Joan Biskupic of Reuters has this news analysis.

And online at The Daily Beast, law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has an essay titled “What’s Taking the Supreme Court So Long? The biggest cases are still to come — and we should be celebrating this drawn-out finale.”

“Modified Categorical Imperative”: Will Baude has this post today at “PrawfsBlawg.”

“Top Court Backs Free Speech for Grant Recipients”: Jess Bravin has this article today in The Wall Street Journal.

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Supreme Court: Anti-prostitution pledge in AIDS law violates free speech; A 2003 US law providing funding to fight AIDS required recipients to explicitly oppose prostitution; The Supreme Court, by a 6-2 margin, rejected the pledge of ‘allegiance to the government’s policy.'”

On yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court: Provision In AIDS Law Violates Free Speech.”

At the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center, Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Constitution Check: Can the government use money to control what private groups say?”

And online at The Nation, law professor David Cole has an essay titled “Supreme Court Delivers a Win for First Amendment Rights.”

“‘Aaron’s Law’ Would Help Reform Our Awful Computer Crime Laws. Will Congress Pass It?” Justin Peters has this blog post online at Slate.

“The Death Penalty’s Slow But Seemingly Sure Decline”: NPR has this report today.

“The judges who preside over America’s secret court”: John Shiffman and Kristina Cooke of Reuters have a report that begins, “Twelve of the 14 judges who have served this year on the most secret court in America are Republicans and half are former prosecutors.”