Even though Congress and the Supreme Court are in recess, there is still plenty of Washington legal news to check out:

Left to their own devices: A recent guilty plea by a medial manufacturer demonstrates the need for legislation that would allow civil suits against medical device makers for defective products, said the American Association for Justice’s chief legislative officer. (Lawyers USA)

Checking credit checks: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has released a legal advisory letter warning that the use of credit checks to screen job applicants could be unlawful if it leads to the disproportionate exclusion of women, minorities and other protected group members. (Lawyers USA)

Hole in the wall: The best course of action for homeowners dealing with tainted imported drywall – which has been linked to health problems and corrosion – is to remove all of it, according to new remediation guidelines issued by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. (Lawyers USA)

Jury of peers? Last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision on jury composition could make it tougher for criminal defendants to challenge all-white juries based on the Sixth Amendment guarantee of an impartial jury that reflects a cross-section of the community. (Lawyers USA)

Universal implications: “What happens in this case won’t just affect the people of California, it will affect the country. And what happens in the United States will affect the rest of the world,” said Ted Olson of the constitutional challenge he and David Boies are leading against California’s gay marriage ban. (The BLT)

Question of Faith? Could Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s potential Supreme Court nomination be impeded by her religion? (Above the Law)

This week has been filled with so much Washington legal news already (just click here to see what we mean), let’s just get to the headlines. Then go out and enjoy the sunshine and cherry blossoms.

So that’s why we see him at the Court so often…Former special counsel Ken Starr’s biggest regret? That he was never a Supreme Court justice. He wanted the post that ultimately went to Justice David Souter. (Fort Worth Star-Telegram via Boston Herald)

Not even Scalia can make civ pro interesting: As funny as he usually is, Justice Antonin Scalia also knows when he’s putting the house to sleep. (Reuters)

Scalia, friend of plaintiff’s lawyers? One opinion penned by Scalia this week makes it easier to bring class action suits in federal court. Wait, what? (Law Blog)

Ready to go: The NLRB is almost fully staffed, meaning it will be running at full capacity again. And business groups are so not happy about it.  (New York Times)

Gearing up for a fight: We told you the 9^th Circuit nomination of Goodwin Liu was going to have some fireworks. His hearing was delayed, but Republicans are already taking aim at his answers to the Judiciary Committee’s questionnaire. (The BLT)

The winning party in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established new recusal standards for state court judges was not a winner in the end.

Yesterday the West Virginia Supreme Court declined to reconsider a ruling overturning a $50 million verdict against Massey Energy in the case Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. The plaintiff in the case originally won the verdict on a claim that the company fraudulently usurped business contracts from its smaller competitor.

After the verdict, Massey’s CEO gave $3 million in direct and indirect contributions to the election campaign of an appellate judge hopeful. That amount was more than half the total spent in the campaign. That judge won, assumed a seat on the bench, and was ultimately the deciding vote overturning the $50 million verdict.

But in a 5-4 decision last year, the Supreme Court held that the judge’s failure to recuse himself violated the Due Process Clause.

Yesterday the plaintiff’s attorney Bruce Stanley told the Charleston Gazette that he wasn’t expecting to win the battle in the end, despite the high court victory. “We certainly are not surprised at the outcome, but rather only by the amount of time it took the Supreme Court to reach it,” Stanley said.

Here are more headlines to take you into the weekend:

I’m a what? Bankruptcy lawyers disagree on the impact of this week’s Supreme Court ruling that they are “debt relief agencies.” (Lawyers USA)

Help for women, or for trial lawyers? At a Senate hearing on legislation aimed at closing the gender pay gap, lawmakers, federal agents and experts spent much of the time discussing whether the bill would result in a flood of litigation if passed. (Lawyers USA)

Putting the ‘men’ in ‘harassment’: The number of sexual harassment claims filed by men has doubled in the past two decades, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reports. (Lawyers USA)

Dangerous slings: The head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission warned that baby slings – the soft carriers used by parents to carry infants against their chests – are a suffocation risk, and several babies have already died. (Lawyers USA)

Big Mac attack: Want to know Supreme Court justices’ favorite McDonald’s food? (WSJ’s Law Blog)

Lawyer for ‘D.C. Madam’ suspended: Montgomery Blair Sibley had his law license suspended for three years by the D.C. Court of Appeals. (BLT Blog)

Impeached: The House of Representatives Thursday unanimously approved the four articles of impeachment against New Orleans Federal Judge Thomas Porteous. (New Orleans Times-Picayune)

White House advisers will recommend that the Obama administration prosecute the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks before a military tribunal, according to the Washington Post.

Such a move would reverse the decision by Attorney General Eric Holder to hold the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators in federal court. That decision was criticized by members of Congress from both parties who argued that a military tribunal is an appropriate forum for those accused of launching an attack on the country. But supporters of Holder’s decision say holding the trial in a civilian court, which would afford the accused greater constitutional protections, would demonstrate the country’s commitment to the rule of law.

But according to the Post, White House officials felt hamstrung by members of Congress. Advisers feel the reversal is the only way to secure support and funding from Congress to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay. The administration has already missed its one-year deadline for closing the facility. More here from the Washington Post.

In other legal news:

Gitmo push back: The American Bar Association is pushing back against lawmakers seeking the names of Justice Department attorneys representing Guantánamo Bay detainees. The lawyers have been dubbed “the Al-Qaeda Seven.” (ABA Journal)

License to marry: On Wednesday, the District of Columbia began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, after U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. refused to stay a new law authorizing them. (Lawyers USA)

Greatly exaggerated: Did you hear about the rumor that Chief Justice John G. Roberts is considering retirement? Yeah, he didn’t either. (AP)

Deal breaker: A dozen House of Representatives Democrats opposed to abortion are willing to kill President Barack Obama’s health care reform plan unless it satisfies their demand for language barring the procedure, Representative Bart Stupak said on Thursday. (Reuters)

The blustery weather in Washington this morning will be nothing compared to the whirlwind that will surround the Supreme Court next week, when the justices take up another case testing the limits of gun control laws.

In 2008 the Court struck down a District of Columbia gun control law, saying it violated citizens’ individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. On Tuesday the Court will hear oral arguments in McDonald v. City of Chicago, which tests if that ruling applies to the states. Gun control laws in Chicago and across the country stand in the balance.

And in another closely-watched case, the Court will consider the constitutionality of the controversial “honest services” fraud criminal statute in a challenge brought by former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling. That case, Skilling v. U.S., will be heard Monday morning.

In other legal news:

Stevens out, Kagan in?: SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein is making predictions about the Supreme Court lineup. He says Justice John Paul Stevens is likely stepping down, and Obama will nominate Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace him (Oh look – we agree!). And, he says, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg will still be on the Court next term. (SCOTUSblog)

Record-breaking tenure: The National Law Journal’s Tony Mauro takes a look at stats from the Oyez Project to note at all the milestones Justice Stevens is approaching. For one, he’s almost the oldest justice ever. (BLT Blog)

One less case on the docket: Because a settlement was reached in the case, the U.S. Supreme Court will not decide whether the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act preempts a state court lawsuit against a government contractor that administers benefits provided in accordance with the statute. (Lawyers USA)

Constitutional debate: Sen. Chris Dodd wants to change the Constitution in order to undo the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. (Hartford Courant)

Toyota tort debate: The Toyota situation could be making the argument for tort reform a much harder sell. (The Wall Street Journal‘s Law Blog)

Standoff on mortgage assistance: Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are taking aim at the Obama administration’s struggling mortgage assistance program, with Republicans calling it a worthless exercise and Democrats saying it doesn’t go far enough. (Lawyers USA)

As the federal government finally reopens today after digging out from underneath a blanket of more than three feet of snow, Washington lawmakers are unveiling their plan to deal with the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen

Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., have outlined legislation they plan to file addressing the ruling, which eased campaign finance limits on corporate spending in presidential and congressional elections.

Since the ruling found the limits on corporate spending in elections violates the First Amendment, Congress cannot simply pass legislation overturning it. Instead, the lawmakers presented a framework for limiting the potential ill effects they say the Court’s ruling will have.

Among other things, the bill lawmakers are planning would ban

Sen. Charles Schumer

expenditures from foreign interests, federal contractors and TARP recipients, require corporate spending to be publicly disclosed via enhanced reporting, and require CEO and donor information to be disclosed in political ads.

“The legislative framework I am releasing today with Senator Schumer will serve as a guide to our legislative response to this ruling in both the House and Senate,” Van Hollen said in a statement. “We have a multipronged approach to restrict the corrosive influence of special interests and to ensure that corporate activities in campaigns are fully disclosed to the public.”

Schumer said the rules would prevent funders of political messages from hiding behind ‘dummy corporations.”

In other legal news:

X-ray mission: The Food and Drug Administration has launched an initiative aimed at reducing unnecessary radiation exposure from medical imaging procedures. (Lawyers USA)

Text free juries: New proposed jury instructions for federal courts warn jurors against text messaging, tweeting or using other forms of electronic social media to discuss cases. (Lawyers USA)

SCOTUS halfway point: The U.S. Supreme Court term is half over, but there are still many big cases for the justices to decide in the second half of the term. (Lawyers USA)

Lifting the smoke screen: The Food and Drug Administration will for the first time require tobacco companies to disclose ingredients of cigarettes and other tobacco products. (Lawyers USA)

ABA jab: During a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting today, Sen. Harry Reid offered up criticism of the ABA’s process of evaluating nominees for the federal bench, saying judicial experience isn’t necessarily a measure of qualification. (BLT Blog via ABA Journal)

Speculation over whether the U.S. Supreme Court will start its next term with or without Justice John Paul Stevens has been swirling ever since it was reported that he hired only one clerk for next term instead of the usual four. Now, ABC News is reporting that the Obama administration is preparing for not one, but two possible vacancies on the nation’s highest court.

White House officials are reportedly also preparing for the possible departure of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 76, who last year had her second cancer surgery since taking her seat on the High Court. Despite not missing a single day of oral arguments during treatment for pancreatic cancer, speculation about Ginsburg’s health has continued, spurred by a pair of recent hospitalizations and reports that she dozed off during the State of the Union address last week.

Stevens, 89, less than a year shy of overtaking Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes record to become the oldest justice to serve on the Court, has – like Ginsburg – remained vocal and sharp during oral arguments. But CBS News’ Jan Crawford recently reported that the justice seemed to stumble on his words while summarizing his dissent in the controversial case Citizens United v. FEC from the bench last month, causing more speculation about his future on the Court.

Sources close to Ginsburg threw water on the idea of the justice stepping down, pointing out, among other things, her active participation during oral arguments.

Obama’s short list of potential nominees include Solicitor General Elena Kagan, 7^th Circuit Judge Diane Wood, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, and Leah Ward Sears, former chief of the Georgia Supreme Court, ABC reports.

Meanwhile, while the city braces for yet another winter snowstorm, here is a wrap of the other legal news:

Some boosts in the budget: Despite President Barack Obama’s call for a freeze in discretionary spending, his fiscal 2011 budget calls for a boost in spending for a number of federal agencies and programs that, if adopted by Congress, will have an impact on the work of the nation’s attorneys. (Lawyers USA) (Sub req’d)

Defending the handgun ban: A D.C.-based attorney will argue the Chicago Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court, urging the justices to uphold the city’s strict gun ban. (The National Law Journal) (Sub req’d)

Black history and SCOTUS: In honor of Black History Month, SCOTUSblog is running a series of essays examining race and the Supreme Court. (SCOTUSblog)

Toyota in hot seat: Members of Congress are demanding more answers from Toyota officials concerning problems in 5.6 million of its vehicles which spurred a massive recall operation.(Detroit Free Press)

While folks are still dissecting the POTUS-SCOTUS incident during the State of the Union address, let’s take a glance at some other Washington legal news:

Bankruptcy boost: A bill that would increase the number of federal bankruptcy judges to handle the recent surge of personal and corporate bankruptcies has advanced in the House. (Lawyers USA)

Beyond Ledbetter: Lawmakers marking the one-year anniversary of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act being signed by President Barack Obama said more work needs to be done – and urged passage of another law that would further boost worker protections. (Lawyers USA)

High Court to take on airport privacy? Will the Supreme Court tackle the issue of those controversial full-body scanners at the nation’s airports? (UPI)

Change of venue? The Justice Department, facing mounting pressure from New York politicians, is exploring contingency sites for the trial of alleged terrorist conspirators. (New York Times)

Reunited, and equal: Descendants of the parties in Plessy v. Ferguson reunited for a discussion about that case in Topeka.

Haliburton asks SCOTUS to drop case: Halliburton Co. is asking the Supreme Court to block a Texas woman’s lawsuit alleging she was raped by military contractor co-workers in Iraq. (ABC News)

The event that has dominated mainstream news all week – the devastating earthquake in Port-au-Prince, Haiti – is being felt in the American legal community as well. Lawyers are among the missing in the wake of the quake, and their family members have been taking to social networking sites in hopes of getting work that they are safe.

Meanwhile, American Bar Association President Carolyn B. Lamm is has asked members of the legal community to support humanitarian relief efforts to the country, and many attorneys and firms have done so already.

President Barack Obama has pledged $100 million in U.S. aid to the country, a figure that was matched by the World Bank, and the disaster came just as the White House was preparing to announce new policies aimed at improving U.S.-Haiti relations.

Now for a look at some legal news:

AAJ’s agenda: The nation’s largest trial attorney group has announced that it will focus on boosting consumer protections and promoting corporate accountability as part of its legislative agenda this year. (Lawyers USA)

Special courts for failing banks? The Senate is considering a plan that would create specialized bankruptcy courts for struggling banks and financial services firms, according to a report from Reuters.(Reuters, via Lawyers USA)

O’Connor on elections: Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who has been advocating against the practice of electing judges, will be the keynote speaker at a Georgetown University Law Center forum focusing on two Supreme Court cases about elections. (The BLT Blog)

The day Thomas almost said something: Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick was all excited when it appeared that Clarence Thomas would make his first oral argument remark in years. “We all start craning and gaping. And then Thomas… takes off his glasses, tips his head back up against his headrest, and closes his eyes.” (Slate)

Washington is a little quieter this Friday. The Supreme Court has already recessed for the holidays, as have House lawmakers. Members of the Senate are still in town, though, and they are scheduled to work through the weekend – despite a snowy forecast – to try to make progress on the health care bill and pass a military spending plan.

So before you rush off to the grocery store to stock up on milk before hunkering down for the snowstorm (Washingtonians seem to do that a lot, something that puzzles DC Dicta, who is from Michigan by way of Massachusetts), let’s take a look at the news:

Lawyers of the Year! It’s that time again! Lawyers USA has unveiled its list of lawyers whose work made a significant impact on the law during the year just past. And the list has a few names familiar to those inside the Beltway. Check out the list here. (Lawyers USA)

Capital sentences waning…: There were fewer death penalty sentences handed down in 2009 than in any other year since the Supreme Court reinstated it in 1976. (CNN)

…but executions on the rise: In a strange corollary, more death row convicts were executed in the United States this year than last. (The New York Times).

Backlog backlash: Witnesses, including a victim of rape, urged Congress to do something about the backlog of untested rape kits nationwide. (CBS News)