What I've been reading today rather than blogging:

The Supreme Court oral arguments in Medimmune v. Genentech. The question is whether the constitution forbids a patent licensee from bringing a declaratory judgment action about the invalidity of a patent he is licensed to use. I confess that the answer seems-- to my naive, neo-originalist, eye-- to be clearly "no".

Is judicial independence in peril? Judge William Pryor says no.

Lincoln's First Inaugural: Under the law of judgments, do incorrect judicial decrees in private suits bind the federal government? Lincoln thought the answer was no.

[Thanks to How Appealing for some links.]

I love and hate Williamson County Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, which unites my fascinations with the local regulation of land use and with the jurisdiction of the federal courts. [See, e.g., my previous post here.] So it is with mixed emotions that I read that the House has passed the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2006, which would overrule the application of Williamson County to real property (via Ben Barros).

It's good, because landowners shouldn't have to bring takings claims in state courts before being able to bring them in federal courts, especially given the very real possibility that preclusion rules will stop them from ever bringing them at all. But on the other hand, if Williamson County goes away, who will I be able to argue about it with? Okay, so I suppose the equities are pretty unbalanced. Not that it matters, since the chances of the Senate taking up a procedural eminent domain reform bill in the near future seem slim.