It's the first Monday of October. That means the "open for business" sign is being hung back up at One First Street.

Adam Liptak took a look at the Supreme Court's new strategy for this term in a New York Times article this weekend:

The court is working at a brisker pace than it has in recent years. It is accepting more cases and hearing them earlier in the term. In October and November, the court will hear three arguments a day, rather than the usual two, returning after lunch for the third one.

By frontloading the arguments to the beginning of the term, which generally runs from October to June, the court may be able to issue decisions more regularly and avoid the usual end-of-term barrage of significant rulings.

The National Law Journal has a nice distillation of the particularly interesting cases on the docket this term:

Business is seeking federal pre-emption of state personal injury suits in the pharmaceutical drug and tobacco arenas.

Employees and employers square off in two job bias cases, one involving retaliation and the other pregnancy leave and retirement credit.

Sexual harassment in schools draws the justices into the interplay of two major discrimination statutes.

And an unusually large number of environmental cases -- four -- will be argued, ranging from Navy sonar and its effect on marine mammals to the use of cost-benefit analysis in setting environmental standards.

Among other issues, there also are "dirty words" in a Fox Television challenge; a free speech challenge involving a monument to the "Seven Aphorisms" of the Summum religion; liability-immunity issues for prosecutors and top federal officials; terror victim compensation lawsuits; and counsel representation in state clemency proceedings.

In keeping with the spirit of one case on the docket, FCC v. Fox Television Stations, we'd like to say, "SCOTUS, welcome the f**k back."

Justices Return to Work, With Less Meaty Docket [New York Times]
In the New Term, High Stakes for the High Court [The National Law Journal]

Earlier: SCOTUS to Weigh In on F**king S**t

Earlier this week we reported on Sarah Palin's apparent inability to name more than one important SCOTUS case.

Some commenters felt that we should reserve judgment on Palin's judicial knowledge until we had "confirmation" about those opinions. Some people also questioned what her VP opponent, Joe Biden, might say under similar circumstances.

Well, now we have video:

Some key excerpts for those who cannot play the video after the jump.

Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric last week made me ... happy. But the McCain-Palin campaign appears nonplussed with the post-interview spin.

Maybe the campaign feels pressured by the latest "global electoral college poll."

Regardless, the campaign is set to "re-introduce" Sarah Palin. Palin, and McCain this time, sat down with Katie Couric again. (I guess Mel B was unavailable.) The new interview that will air sometime after the debate.

The McCain-Palin ticket is apparently pumped about how the new interview went. They want CBS to air the full interview, unedited. But the campaign is mad that CBS leaked a snippet of last week's Couric interview that did not air:

Of concern to McCain's campaign, however, is a remaining and still-undisclosed clip from Palin's interview with Couric last week that has the political world buzzing.

The Palin aide, after first noting how "infuriating" it was for CBS to purportedly leak word about the gaffe, revealed that it came in response to a question about Supreme Court decisions.

After noting Roe vs. Wade, Palin was apparently unable to discuss any major court cases.

There was no verbal fumbling with this particular question as there was with some others, the aide said, but rather silence.

I'll pause for criticisms about the liberal media, northeastern elites, and my mother.

More after the jump.

While everyone spent the weekend talking about who bested whom in the McCain-Obama match-up, the New York Times magazine turned away from all that to focus on the really important policy makers in Washington: the Supreme Court. SCOTUS played cover model for Sunday's NYT magazine, with HLS prof Noah Feldman's lengthy piece, When Judges Make Foreign Policy.

We love the Star Wars-esque article preview: "When the next justice is appointed, our place in the world may well hang in the balance." In case you didn't get the magazine this weekend, and don't feel like clicking through ten pages online to read it, we've got a rundown for you.

Feldman writes that the justices have become "the oracles of our national identity." We like this analogy. The Greek oracles wore white. The Justices wear black. Advice seekers went to temples to consult Greek oracles. People go to the white gleaming temple at One First Street to address the Justices. The Greeks had hallucinogenic fumes rising from the earth, enhancing their prophetic powers. The Justices have caffeine and the sweet, sweet smell of the pages of the Constitution. But we digress.

Feldman says the defining issue of our time is globalization, and that SCOTUS wields incredible power as it establishes the place of the U.S. in the world through its rulings on international law. Listen up, law school folk, perhaps that international law class is not such a waste of time after all. Conservatives and liberals feel differently, of course, about how the Constitution applies internationally:

In recent years, two prominent schools of thought have emerged... One view, closely associated with the Bush administration, begins with the observation that law, in the age of modern liberal democracy, derives its legitimacy from being enacted by elected representatives of the people. From this standpoint, the Constitution is seen as facing inward, toward the Americans who made it, toward their rights and their security. For the most part, that is, the rights the Constitution provides are for citizens and provided only within the borders of the country...

A competing view, championed mostly by liberals, defines the rule of law differently: law is conceived not as a quintessentially national phenomenon but rather as a global ideal. The liberal position readily concedes that the Constitution specifies the law for the United States but stresses that a fuller, more complete conception of law demands that American law be pictured alongside international law and other (legitimate) national constitutions.

Feldman argues that new appointees for SCOTUS spots that are sure to open should be evaluated based on their thinking about the Court's role in shaping American foreign policy. The SCOTUS newbies will determine whether the Constitution will be a shield, or will be a blanket shared around the global campfire while everyone sings Kumbaya.

More on this after the jump.

As the old saying goes, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a lawyer to be hired as a lateral partner at Williams & Connolly." The last lateral partner to be hired by the super-elite litigation shop, which people and corporations turn to when they're in the deepest of doo-doo, was Gerald Feffer, brought into the fold over two decades ago.

So this latest move is fairly big news. Appellate superstar Kannon Shanmugam, one of Washington's top 40 lawyers under 40 (see #21), is leaving the Solicitor General's office, where he has served for the past four years as an Assistant to the Solicitor General. He'll be joining Williams & Connolly -- as a partner.

"It's very hard to leave the Justice Department, but I'm excited about the challenge of helping to build the appellate practice at Williams & Connolly," Shanmugam told us. "It's arguably the best firm for litigation in the country, but what ultimately attracted me to the firm is its distinctive culture."

"We are thrilled to have Kannon join us," said Robert Barnett, a member of the firm's Executive Committee (and author rep to the stars -- he's negotiated book deals for the Clintons, Barack Obama, Bob Woodward, Lynne Cheney, and Alan Greenspan, among others). "He's our first lateral partner in 22 years, which is indicative of how rarely we have lateral partners join us."

"Almost everyone at the firm is homegrown, coming up through the associate ranks and making partner," explained Barnett to ATL. "Kannon, because of his exceptional qualities, is going to be a rare exception to that pattern. On a personal level, he's a terrific individual. But we are also extremely respectful and welcoming of his legal skills."

Word on the street is that Shanmugam received offers from about half a dozen other firms. "He was sought by many firms, and being as competitive as we are, we're pleased to have won the Kannon sweepstakes," said Bob Barnett.

Additional discussion, after the jump.

Former Supreme Court clerks, also known as the Elect, have no shortage of job opportunities. And a new development in state government is giving them even more. From the National Law Journal:

A trend among states in recent years to appoint a solicitor general has increased opportunities for young attorneys to get into court and ultimately return to private practice far from Washington, the traditional heart of the nation's appellate bar.

In the past decade, a dozen states, including California, Florida and North Carolina, have added state solicitor generals [sic], many of whom oversee large staffs, said Dan Schweitzer, Supreme Court counsel for the National Association of Attorneys General. Nationwide, 37 states have a solicitor general, he said.

"There are a lot more appellate positions that attract top-notch lawyers," Schweitzer said.

There are shout-outs to several hot young lawyers whose names should be familiar to ATL readers.

Find out who, after the jump.

If you're in New York today (Sunday) and looking for something to do in the afternoon, consider checking out Thurgood. It's a one-man show about the life of Justice Thurgood Marshall (1908-1993), starring Laurence Fishburne (best known as Morpheus of The Matrix, but with a long list of other film and theater credits).

It's an entertaining and educational production, and Laurence Fishburne turns in a superb performance. As one friend of ours, an ex-theater major, put it, "Fishburne was able to make the audience forget that this is a one-man show."

As one might expect from a play based on the life of a heroic historical figure, Thurgood occasionally verges on the pedantic and preachy ("one person can make a difference"; "we know how far we've come -- but we also know how far we still have to go"). Law nerds might find feel patronized by the more expository parts of the play, like the mini-reviews of Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education. You can often sense the "message" button being pushed.

But hey, everyone needs a refresher course every now and then. And there are enough interesting bits of biographical trivia -- as well as ample entertainment, in the form of humorous anecdotes from Marshall's life, well-told by Fishburne -- to make you forgive the more didactic or heavy-handed elements.

If you'd like to see Thurgood, you need to act fast; it's closing today. The 3 p.m. matinee is the final performance. You can probably get discounted tickets at the TKTS booth (since Thurgood was there last week, and there were definitely a few empty seats at the performance we attended yesterday).

Additional thoughts -- if you're planning on seeing the play, save these for later, so you can form your own opinions free of taint -- after the jump.

We're down to your last two ATL Idols: FROLIC AND DETOUR and SOPHIST. It's time for them to face off in the third and final head-to-head round of ATL Idol, the reality-TV-style talent search for Above the Law's new editor. You know the drill, but if you're just tuning in, here's how this round will work:

The head-to-head round is designed to serve as a test of pure writing ability. We'll publish the contestants' different takes on the same (assigned) story. The head-to-head round is designed to show how the bloggers write up the same story, to eliminate any advantage from story selection. Story selection is an important skill for bloggers, but it's one that the contestants have demonstrated in their features and freestyle posts.

Just like the past two weeks, this round will be reviewed by ATL's panel of celebrity judges: Ann Althouse, Tom Goldstein, and Dahlia Lithwick.

Check out the bloggers' contributions, after the jump.

This installment of the wedding watch is a bit of a hodge-podge. We've got old people, Communism, Skadden, HLS, organized crime, a SCOTUS connection, and a midriff-baring bride. But the common thread, as always, is lawyers in love (though not necessarily with other lawyers; there's just one dual-JD pair in this group).

Here are this week's nominees:

1. Deborah Ellis and Hal Strelnick

2. Rachel Hershfang and Wesley Williams

3. Katherine Wagner-McCoy and Jacob Goldstein

4. Andrea Connor and Evan Hudson

More about these envy-inducing newlyweds, after the jump.

A few weeks ago, Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the Most Holy D.C. Circuit warned summer associates not to do anything that would get them a shout-out on Above the Law. Law school career counselors, we're told, tell students the same thing when advising them about how to conduct themselves as summer associates.

That may be wise advice, as far as Biglaw goes. You don't want to stand out from the crowd. Work hard, keep your head down, get the offer.

But if you're gunning for the ultimate credential in the legal profession, a coveted U.S. Supreme Court clerkship, could a little bit of publicity on ATL perhaps be a good thing? Could the Elect be governed by a different set of rules than mere mortals?

Am Law 200 law firms are expected to hire about 10,000 new associates this fall (although query whether that number will go down with the economy). In contrast, the nine justices, plus retired Justice O'Connor, hire just 37 new law clerks each year. Thus, unlike summer associates, Supreme Court clerks DO need to stand out from the crowd to land their jobs.

Interestingly enough, a number of Harvard Law School students who were mentioned by name on ATL subsequently landed SCOTUS clerkships. Consider:

The U.S. Supreme Court's most recent Term ended last month. But we still have a few SCOTUS-related items to send your way (plus a clerk hiring update at some point in the near future; if you're aware of hires not on this list, please email us).

First, there are a pair of panel discussions reviewing October Term 2007 that are now available online. Both were held, coincidentally enough, on July 1 at the National Press Club here in Washington. Click here for the Federalist Society's, and click here for the American Constitution Society's.

Second, in case you missed it, footnote 17 in Justice David Souter's opinion in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, the punitive damages case, caused a stir in legal academia. In it, DHS dissed some research into the unpredictability of punitive damages performed by (recently married) law professor Cass Sunstein. Justice Souter wrote: "Because this research was funded in part by Exxon, we decline to rely on it." To read more about the footnote, check out Tony Mauro's item in the Legal Times (via the WSJ Law Blog).

Third, as promised, we have a more detailed write-up of the star-studded clerk reunion for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, courtesy of an AMK clerk in attendance. You can read about it after the jump.

Courtside: With Footnote, Souter Causes Stir [Legal Times via WSJ Law Blog]
A Look Back at the October Supreme Court 2007 Term [Federalist Society]
ACS Supreme Court Review Live on C-Span 2 [American Constitution Society]

Their personal identity information gets compromised by data breaches. From the Washington Post:

Sometime late last year, an employee of a McLean investment firm decided to trade some music, or maybe a movie, with like-minded users of the online file-sharing network LimeWire while using a company computer. In doing so, he inadvertently opened the private files of his firm, Wagner Resource Group, to the public.

That exposed the names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers of about 2,000 of the firm's clients, including a number of high-powered lawyers and Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer....

A spokesman for Breyer said the justice had no comment on the security breach, which came to light after the reader notified Security Fix and the blog alerted some of the Wagner clients.

Eh, but who cares about lowly -- or low-paid -- Supreme Court justices? Lordly law firm partners were also victimized: "'This may explain why two weeks ago I got a $9,000 cellphone bill from AT&T,' said Steven Agresta, a partner with the law firm Alston & Bird."

Or maybe a certain A&B summer associate got a hold of Agresta's cell phone, and decided to call his homies back in Croatia. Did Agresta also get charged for a small fortune in necktie purchases?

Update: Some of you have asked for an update about Divljan Shatterhand Steele. He's still a summer associate at Alston & Bird, where he is doing well and has become something of a minor celebrity.

Justice Breyer Is Among Victims in Data Breach Caused by File Sharing [Washington Post via Drudge]

While we're on the subject of Supreme Court clerks...

The AMK clerk who worked on Kennedy v. Louisiana, in which the Court held that imposing the death penalty for raping a child was unconstitutional, has committed an even bigger boo-boo than the JGR clerk who screwed up the Bob Dylan quotation.

As noted yesterday, sometimes the Elect are "just like us."

In Court Ruling on Executions, a Factual Flaw [New York Times]
The Supremes Dis the Military Justice System [CAAFlog]

What's going on at the Supreme Court? Last weekend, after handing down the last opinions of October Term 2007, two of the justices had law clerk reunions at One First Street.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hosted a tea for her clerks on Sunday afternoon. Perfectly lovely and civilized, and just what one would expect from a justice with a white frilly thing sprouting from her neck.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy has his clerk reunion every five years. There was a black-tie dinner at the Court on Saturday night, followed by a kid- and family-friendly lunch on Sunday. Turnout was strong, and the attendees included several former AMK clerks who are now judges: Chief Judge Alex Kozinski (9th Cir.; awkward?), Judge Brett Kavanaugh (D.C. Cir.), Judge Neil Gorsuch (10th Cir.), and the just-confirmed Raymond Kethledge (6th Cir.). We may have a more detailed report on the AMK reunion later.

And speaking of Supreme Court clerks, we have lots of hiring news to pass along. We were hoping to wait a bit longer to tie up some loose ends (of which there are a number). But since some of this news has been showing up elsewhere -- e.g., the Volokh Conspiracy (Orin Kerr); Wikipedia -- we've been forced to show our hand.

As noted over at the Clerkship Notification Blog, Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg have completed their law clerk hiring for October Term 2009. In addition, we've independently confirmed that Justice Antonin Scalia is also all finished for OT 2009. If you were hoping to land a clerkship with JPS, RBG, or AS -- who, by the way, are frequently mentioned by ex-SCOTUS clerks (of all ideological stripes) when you ask them who the smartest of the nine justices are -- sorry, but the courthouse doors are closed. Try again next year.

Check out the list of Supreme Court clerks for OT 2009 -- which contains some information gaps, which we're hoping you can help us fill -- after the jump.

The legal (and music) world is abuzz in response to Chief Justice John Roberts citing Bob Dylan in his dissent in Sprint v. APCC Services. From the New York Times:

Four pages into his dissent on Monday in an achingly boring dispute between pay phone companies and long distance carriers, John G. Roberts Jr., the chief justice of the United States, put a song lyric where the citation to precedent usually goes.

"The absence of any right to the substantive recovery means that respondents cannot benefit from the judgment they seek and thus lack Article III standing," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. " 'When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose.' Bob Dylan, Like a Rolling Stone, on Highway 61 Revisited (Columbia Records 1965)."

Alex B. Long, a law professor at the University of Tennessee and perhaps the nation's leading authority on the citation of popular music in judicial opinions, said this was almost certainly the first use of a rock lyric to buttress a legal proposition in a Supreme Court decision. "It's a landmark opinion," Professor Long said.

Rolling Stone named "Like a Rolling Stone" the best song of all time. Roberts, or the clerk who provided the citation, has good taste, but poor attention to detail. A double negative has gone missing; when Dylan sings it, it is "When you ain't got nothing..."

Rolling Stone points out that Roberts is the first baby boomer SCOTUS chief. It may be true that we'll see more musical legal citations by those raised on the political music of the 60s:

In the lower courts, according to a study Professor Long published in the Washington & Lee Law Review last year, Mr. Dylan is by far the most cited songwriter. He has been quoted in 26 opinions. Paul Simon is next, with 8 (12 if you count those attributed to Simon & Garfunkel). Bruce Springsteen has 5.

Both Dylan and Springsteen had three songs nominated for ATL's Top Ten Law Songs list, though Dylan was the only one to make the final cut with "Hurricane." Johnny Cash had the most songs nominated. Why aren't the courts showing Cash citation love?

The Chief Justice, Dylan and the Disappearing Double Negative [New York Times]
Chief Justice John Roberts (Almost) Quotes Bob Dylan [Rolling Stone]

* A look back on the Supreme Court Term just ended. (Also: Is this Linda Greenhouse's swan song?) [New York Times]

Update: No, it's not. Greenhouse informed us by email that she'll be at the Times until July 18 and will be writing a few more pieces between now and then.

* DOD and EPA disagree on cleanup. [Washington Post]

* LVMH wins French lawsuit against ebay for counterfeit products, following earlier win for Hermes. [New York Times]

* Kellerman on Scalia's gun safety theory. [Washington Post]

* Iraqi government doing a double-take on oil contract bidding? [New York Times]

* Indiana teacher fired for using Freedom Writers' Diary. [CNN Video]

* DOJ settles with ex-Army scientist Steven Hatfill for $5.8 million. [AP]

Update: The Court released its opinion in Heller, and it upheld the lower court's ruling that the D.C. handgun ban is unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion, with Justices Breyer, Stevens, Souter and Ginsberg dissenting. You can read the full opinion here. For excellent, ongoing analysis, see SCOTUSblog.

As you probably know, today is a big day for SCOTUS-watchers. The Court is expected to issue its three final rulings for this term today. The Justices won't return until October 6th.

Of today's three decisions, the most significant is District of Columbia v. Heller, the D.C. gun control case. The constitutionality of the District's 32-year old law banning the ownership of handguns is being challenged. The Court will decide whether to affirm a 2007 appeals court ruling that overturned D.C.'s ban on Second Amendment grounds and, by implication, whether such bans violate the Second Amendment's right "to keep and bear arms" by keeping individuals, as opposed to state militias, from owning handguns. The opinion should be released at any minute.

Here's the AP's sparse background summary of the case, and here's CNN's more thorough discussion. If, however, you want minute-by-minute coverage, SCOTUSblog has a running feed set up so you won't miss a thing.

No, not really. The sensationalist headline of this post is issued with tongue planted firmly in cheek.

But yes, the U.S. Supreme Court just handed down two big opinions, ruling in favor of Exxon (vacating the Ninth Circuit's affirmance of the $2.5 billion punitive damages award to victims of the Exxon Valdez oil spill) and a child rapist (holding that imposing the death penalty for child rape, in a case where defendant's acts were not intended to cause death, violates the Eighth Amendment).

Still at large: Heller, the D.C. gun control case. Tom Goldstein speculates that Justice Scalia will be writing the principal opinion.

For more on today's rulings, see the links below. If you have an opinion on them, please share it in the comments.

LiveBlog: Opinions | 6.25.08 [SCOTUSblog]
Supreme Court Rejects Death Penalty for Child Rape [AP]
Justices Cut Damages Award in Exxon Valdez Spill [AP]

Or maybe "broken"; the news came in about an hour ago, and we're a little slow on the draw. From Lyle Denniston over at SCOTUSblog:

In a stunning blow to the Bush Administration in its war-on-terrorism policies, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to pursue habeas challenges to their detention. The Court, dividing 5-4, ruled that Congress had not validly taken away habeas rights. If Congress wishes to suspend habeas, it must do so only as the Constitution allows -- when the country faces rebellion or invasion.

The Court stressed that it was not ruling that the detainees are entitled to be released -- that is, entitled to have writs issued to end their confinement. That issue, it said, is left to the District Court judges who will be hearing the challenges. The Court also said that "we do not address whether the President has authority to detain" individuals during the war on terrorism, and hold them at the U.S. Naval base in Cuba; that, too, it said, is to be considered first by the District judges.

Sounds like there's a little punting going on. But that's why the Supreme Court is supreme: they give the district judges the first crack at things, then show up and tell the DJs where they went wrong.

More here from the New York Times, which describes the ruling in Boumediene v. Bush (PDF) as "a historic decision on the balance between personal liberties and national security."

Court gives detainees habeas rights [SCOTUSblog]
Justices Rule Terror Suspects Can Appeal in Civilian Courts [New York Times]
Boumediene v. Bush (PDF) [SCOTUSblog]

At his talk last week before the Federalist Society here in Washington, Justice Antonin Scalia casually alluded to interviewing a clerkship applicant "just the other day." One could sense the ears of hundreds of summer associates perking up at his passing mention of that coveted clerkship.

Justice Scalia's offhand remark confirmed what we've been hearing through the grapevine. Nino has started interviewing potential law clerks for October Term 2009 -- and he's started hiring, too. We've confirmed that he has hired Katherine Twomey, a 2008 graduate of UVA Law School, who will be clerking for Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson (4th Cir.) before heading off to One First Street.

Is Justice Scalia moving early? Not terribly. It's true, of course, that the OT 2009 crop of clerks won't start for over a year. The Court is still busy handing down its biggest opinions for October Term 2007, and the October Term 2008 clerks have not yet arrived. (We have a short piece about the composition of the OT 2008 clerk class in this month's Washingtonian magazine; to read it, click here.)

But compared to his colleagues, Justice Scalia is in the middle of the pack when it comes to OT 2009 hiring. In addition to Scalia, five other justices have hired at least one clerk for 2009-2010. Justice Ginsburg is the farthest along, having already hired half of her clerks for that year.

To see what the class of SCOTUS clerks for OT 2009 looks like so far, read below the fold.