“Terrorism conviction upheld for ex-janitor at Minneapolis mosque”: The Minneapolis Star Tribune has this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Minnesota man’s conviction in al-Shabab case affirmed.”

My earlier coverage of today’s Eighth Circuit ruling appears at this link.

“Roy Moore suggests impeachment of U.S. Supreme Court justices who perform same-sex marriages”: Kelsey Stein of The Birmingham News has this report.

“Georgia Justice: The Supreme Court will review a case of blatant racism by prosecutors; For once, there’s a paper trail.” Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Formalism and Functionalism in the Fifth Case in the Article III ‘Trilogy'”: Michael Dorf has this post today at “Dorf on Law.”

“‘One Man, One Vote’ Keeps Changing”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

“Supreme Court: Big Pharma must pay for prescription drug disposal in Alameda County.” The Oakland Tribune has this report.

“Whistleblowers dodge disaster in Supreme Court’s KBR decision”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report today.

“Obama Won’t Take Immigration Battle Directly to Supreme Court”: Michael D. Shear of The New York Times has a news update that begins, “President Obama will put off a confrontation at the Supreme Court over his immigration executive actions, choosing not to ask for permission to carry out the programs while a fight over presidential authority plays out in the lower courts, officials said Wednesday.”

“Nebraska Abolishes Death Penalty”: Julie Bosman of The New York Times has a news update that begins, “Nebraska on Wednesday became the first conservative state in more than 40 years to abolish the death penalty, with lawmakers defying their Republican governor, Pete Ricketts, a staunch supporter of capital punishment who had lobbied vigorously against banning it.”

The Lincoln Journal Star has a news update headlined “Senators vote to repeal death penalty.”

And Joe Duggan of The Omaha World-Herald Bureau has a news update headlined “Nebraska senators override governor’s veto, repeal death penalty.”

“Presently, we consider the effectiveness of an anticipatory invocation of the Miranda-based right to counsel.” So begins a majority opinion that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued yesterday. The decision holds that the anticipatory invocation of Miranda rights, communicated via fax to the Philadelphia Police Department and the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office while the defendant remained in Florida awaiting extradition, did not necessitate suppression of the defendant’s uncounseled confession to police detectives following his return to Pennsylvania.

Only four Justices participated in the ruling. A total of three Justices joined in the majority opinion. One of those three also issued a concurring opinion. And the remaining Justice issued a dissent.

“After thoroughly reviewing the FISA materials, we have no hesitation concluding that probable cause under FISA existed under any standard of review.” So holds a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in a ruling issued today in the case captioned United States v. Mahamud Said Omar.

“Health law court case winner could be political loser”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The party that wins the impending Supreme Court decision on President Barack Obama’s health care law could be the political loser.”

“Leading the secret FISA court: Q&A with Judge Reggie Walton.” CNN.com published this interview last Friday evening.

“Federal appeals court rejects Arkansas’ 12-week abortion ban”: The Associated Press has this report on a per curiam opinion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued today.

Questioning the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. sec. 2423(c), which makes it a federal crime for a U.S. citizen to sexually abuse a minor on foreign soil: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit at this link. Only two of the three judges on the panel joined in the portion of the opinion described in the title of this post.

This blog’s first ever (and, if unsuccessful, perhaps last ever) survey of federal appellate judges: Tomorrow and Friday in Washington, DC, the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure — which sits atop the public proceedings in the federal rule amendment process — will be meeting. Among the issues scheduled to be considered and acted on is the proposal to shorten the word limits for federal appellate briefs. You can view the agenda book for the meeting via this link, and the agenda book’s discussion of this particular amendment begins here.

To summarize, currently the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allow a party’s main brief on appeal to contain up to 14,000 words. The Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules proposed an amendment that would reduce the maximum length to 12,500 words. After significant opposition was received from experienced appellate practitioners, last month the Appellate Advisory Committee approved a compromise proposal providing that the maximum word length would be reduced to 13,000 words and that federal appellate courts would be encouraged by means of a comment to the rule to relax any existing impediments to granting extensions of the word limits so that extensions would be available in appropriately complex cases.

Earlier this month, I was fortunate to serve as the moderator of a panel at the Judicial Conference of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Although the Fifth Circuit is one of the busiest federal appellate courts in the nation, three active judges serving on that court informed me in connection with my attendance at the conference that they would prefer to keep the current 14,000-word limit for federal appellate briefs. This caused me to wonder about whether federal appellate judges on the whole in fact support the proposed word limit reduction amendment and, if so, to what degree.

Thus, starting now (at 11 a.m. eastern time today) and ending at 12 noon eastern time on Thursday, I am asking U.S. Court of Appeals judges who wish to be counted in this survey to send me an email from their work email address to this blog’s email address [[email protected]] stating simply whether they SUPPORT or OPPOSE the word limit reduction amendment in its current form. Not later than 2 p.m. tomorrow, I will publish the results of this survey here at “How Appealing.” I will not identify by name, circuit, or in any other respect any judges who respond to this survey. I will, however, reprint verbatim any statement of explanation that anyone chooses to provide, but no response beyond a vote of SUPPORT or OPPOSE is requested or anticipated.

As matters currently stand, the vote is 6 federal appellate judges in favor of the amendment and 4 opposed. I will not be providing interim results before the final tally is announced at 2 p.m. eastern time tomorrow, so that current tally is based on votes that have been cast in my presence by currently serving U.S. Court of Appeals judges in advance of the official start of voting.

“By Reason of Insanity: The first successful use of the insanity plea was a high-profile murder trial that riveted antebellum America.” Alexis Coe has this essay online at Lapham’s Quarterly.

“When expert testimony isn’t: Tainted evidence wreaks havoc in courts, lives; Across the country, the criminal justice system is grappling with the fallout from decades of faulty analysis in criminal cases that may have resulted in thousands of wrongful convictions.” Henry Gass of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

“FAC 5 (First Amendment Conversations) Madison Unplugged: A Candid Q&A with Burt Neuborne about Law, Life & His Latest Book.” Ronald K.L. Collins has this post today at “Concurring Opinions.”

“In Memoriam: Daniel J. Meltzer ’75.” Available here via Harvard Law Today.

“Are Federal Appellate Courts Growing Impatient with Procedural Errors? — Risks for Clients and Their Counsel.” The law firm of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP has issued this Appellate Alert discussing several matters that are likely to be familiar to regular readers of this blog.

“Supreme Court to Consider How to Calculate Size of Voting Districts; Justices to consider whether eligible voters, not total population, should define districts”: Jess Bravin has this article in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

In today’s edition of The New York Times, Adam Liptak has a front page article headlined “Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote.’”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Supreme Court to examine if Texas districts violate one person, one vote.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court could deal California ‘a one-two punch’ on redistricting.”

And in commentary, online at Slate law professor Richard L. Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — has a jurisprudence essay titled “Only Voters Count? Conservatives ask the Supreme Court to restrict states’ rights and overturn precedent.”