“If the Roberts court continues on the course suggested by its first five years, it is likely to allow a greater role for religion in public life, to permit more participation by unions and corporations in elections and to elaborate further on the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. Abortion rights are likely to be curtailed, as are affirmative action and protections for people accused of crimes.”

That prediction came in a New York Times analysis by Adam Liptak of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.’s Supreme Court, which, Liptak writes, has become “the most conservative one in living memory.”

And that is something that will not change for quite some time, given the Court’s makeup. The impact on the Court of President Barack Obama’s two picks so far, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and likely-to-be-confirmed nominee Elena Kagan, is slight, given the fact that they were named to replace justices with similar ideological leanings.

In fact, the article states, the big shift occurred five years ago with one key appointment by President George W. Bush: Justice Samuel Alito, Jr. taking the seat of retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

In other Beltway-related legal news to kick off your week:

Rangel’s failed settlement: The announcement that New York Rep. Charlie Rangel would face a congressional trial over charges of ethics violations came after settlement negotiations between Rangel and the House ethics committee broke down. (New York Times)

Friend in dissent: Right up until the end of his tenure, Justice John Paul Stevens did what he had for decades – sparred with Justice Antonin Scalia in written opinions. (Washington Post)

Right of first recusal: Kagan will have to sit out a dozen or more cases news term, due to her involvement in the cases as solicitor general. But will she have to recuse herself when the healthcare law lands before the Court? (NYT)

Nursing guidance: The U.S. Department of Labor has issued a fact sheet outlining employers’ obligation to give adequate break time to nursing mothers under the health care reform law that went into effect earlier this year. (Lawyers USA)

After meeting with Senate leaders at the White House about the next Supreme Court nominee, President Barack Obama told reporters this morning that he will select someone to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens some time next month.

Speaking to the press as he sat with Vice President Joe Biden, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and ranking Republican Jeff Sessions, Obama called Stevens “one of the finest Supreme Court justices that we’ve seen.”

“Those are going to be some tough shoes to fill,” Obama said. “This is somebody who operated with extraordinary integrity and fidelity to the law. But I’m confident that we can come up with a nominee who will gain the confidence of the Senate and the confidence of the country, and the confidence of individuals who look to the Court to provide even handed justice to all Americans.”

Obama said he hoped for the confirmation process to go as smoothly as it did last year.

“Last time when I nominated Sonia Sotomayor, I have to say that all the individuals who are sitting here … worked very cooperatively on what I considered to be a very smooth, civil, thoughtful nomination process and confirmation process. [M]y hope is that we can do the same thing this time.”

He said last year the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor came at the end of May, and he hoped to make or beat that timeline this year.

When asked what bearing the issue of abortion would have on his selection, Obama said he firmly believes in a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, but said that he had no litmus test.

“This has been a hugely contentions issue in our country for a very long time,” Obama said. “I have said the same thing that every president has said since this issue case up, which is I don’t have a litmus test.”

But he said he would select “somebody who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights, and that includes women’s rights. And that is going to be something very important to me. … Individuals are protected in their privacy, their bodily integrity, and women are not exempt from that.”

UPDATE: After the meeting, Sessions and McConnell issued a joint statement:

“When the President selects a nominee, Senate Republicans will review that nominee’s record diligently and respectfully with the goal of ensuring that the American people can be confident that the nominee will be able to fulfill the judicial oath, which is to ‘faithfully and impartially’ administer justice ‘without respect to persons,’” the statement read.

“Judges must apply the Constitution and laws even-handedly. They should not enter the courtroom with preconceived outcomes in mind, or work to arrive at the preferred result of any President or political party. A Supreme Court justice must not be a rubberstamp or policy arm for any Administration.

“As we did with Justice Sotomayor, we will treat the President’s nominee fairly. But a lifetime position on the nation’s highest court requires a thorough process, not a rush to judgment.”

The US. Supreme Court resumes oral arguments today with two high-profile cases.

First the justice will take up whether a public university law school can deny funding and recognition to a religious student organization that bans non-religious and gay students from its membership in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez.

Then the justices take up City of Ontario v. Quon, a case considering whether employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages they send using electronic devices supplied by their employer. The case could have wide-ranging implications affecting how employees use the cell phones, laptop computers and other equipment given to them to use on the job.

More on these arguments, as well as any newsworthy orders today from the Court, later on this blog and on Lawyers USA online.

Meanwhile, in other news:

Scalia speaks: During the Court’s latest recess, several justices took to the lecture circuit. Justice Scalia spoke Friday at the University of Virginia, where he used to be a law professor, and discussed – wait for it – originalism.  (Charlottesville Daily Progress)

Breyer’s prediction: Meanwhile, while testifying last week along with Justice Clarence Thomas before Congress, Justice Stephen Breyer predicted that the new health care reform law would probably end up before the Supreme Court for review. (AP)

Not ready for a close-up: Would you like to see Supreme Court proceedings televised? Don’t hold your breath, Breyer said. (Washington Post)

The absent justice? If Solicitor General Elena Kagan becomes a Supreme Court justice this summer, she may have to recuse herself from a host of cases being considered by the Court. Might that harm her chances of getting President Obama’s nod? (SCOTUSblog)

New issue in NLRB case: The Supreme Court asked the attorneys for the parties in the case testing the authority of the former two-member National Labor Relations Board to file supplemental briefs on the effect of the two recent appointments. (SCOTUSblog)

Clinton‘s SCOTUS advice: Former President Bill Clinton thinks President Obama should pick a young non-judge to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. And neither he nor his wife fit the bill, he added. (AP)

As lawmakers await President Barack Obama’s selection to fill the Supreme Court seat being vacated by retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, Democrats are stepping up their call for a speedy confirmation while Republicans are trying not to use the F-word – filibuster – but remaining firm that the president must pick a mainstream candidate.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” yesterday, ranking Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Jeff. Sessions was asked whether there would be big confirmation fight.

“The answer to that is in the president’s hands,” said Sessions. “If we have a nominee that evidences a philosophy of judges know best, … then we are going to have a big fight about that because the American people don’t want that.”

Meanwhile, fellow committee Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, speaking yesterday on ABC’s “This Week,” called the most oft-mentioned potential candidates “nominally qualified.” Among those reportedly on Obama’s short list are Solicitor General Elena Kagan, federal appellate Judges Merrick Garland and Diane Wood and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

Kyl, who voted against the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor last year, didn’t take the issue of filibuster off the table, but he downplayed the possibility. “It is unlikely that here will be a filibuster unless its an extraordinary circumstance,” Kyl said, adding that “President Obama himself attempted to filibuster Justice [Samuel] Alito.” During the Sotomayor confirmation hearings last year, Republicans made much of Obama’s votes against Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Alito during their confirmation hearings.

This is gearing up to be another long summer for the White House, the Senate and Supreme Court junkies.

Meanwhile, in other news (is there other news?):

Health case surprises: In addition to universal health care, the new reform law includes various provisions relevant to lawyers, including tax changes, an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act, new whistleblower provisions for hospital employees and other employment-related updates. (Lawyers USA)

DOJ pick withdraws: Dawn Johnsen, Obama’s pick to lead the powerful Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department who faced staunch Republican opposition that slowed her nomination to a full stop,  withdrew from consideration for the post on Friday. (The New York Times)

States’ suit: More and more states are signing on to the lawsuit over the health care law. (WSJ’s Law Blog)

Justice John Paul Stevens will retire at the end of this term, the U.S. Supreme Court announced this morning. The move gives President Barack Obama the opportunity to nominate a second justice to the nation’s highest court.

Today’s announcement, which comes 11 days before Stevens’ 90^th birthday, ends months of speculation about Stevens’ future on the court. The second oldest justice on ever to serve on the Court, Stevens recently told media outlets that he would definitely retire during Obama’s first term.

UPDATED:

The letter from Stevens to President Obama, dated today, reads in its entirety:

My dear Mr. President:

Having concluded that it would be in the best interests of the Court to have my successor appointed and confirmed well in advance of the commencement of the Court’s next Term, I shall retire from regular active service as an Associate Justice, under the provisions of 28 D.S.C. § 371(b), effective the next day after the Court rises for the summer recess this year.

Most respectfully yours,

/Signed/

John Paul Stevens

More on Stevens’ retirement announcement here from Lawyers USA.

Lawyers have a constitutional obligation to inform their clients that a criminal plea could result in deportation, the U.S. Supreme Court held today.

In his opinion in the case Padilla v. Kentucky, Justice John Paul Stevens held that an attorney who told his client not to worry about the consequences of a guilty plea – and  whose client was later subject to a deportation order because of his conviction – gave constitutionally deficient representation.

“It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant – whether a citizen or not – is left to the ‘mercies of incompetent counsel,’” Stevens wrote. “To satisfy this responsibility, we now hold that counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation.”

The 7-2 ruling was assailed in a dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia, who accused the majority of ignoring the text of the Sixth Amendment in order to achieve the result it wanted.

“Constitution [is] not an all-purpose tool for judicial construction of a perfect world; and when we ignore the text in order to make it that, we often find ourselves swinging a sledge where a tack hammer is needed,” Scalia wrote.

In the other opinion handed down this morning, Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance, the Court held that a New York state law barring class actions for “penalty” fees cannot prevent a diversity jurisdiction class action claim because the state rule conflicts with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The plurality opinion, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, found that the conflict between state and federal rules must be resolved in favor of the federal rule, which allows such claims.

More on these cases today and in the days to come on Lawyers USA online.

Last week, during oral arguments at the Supreme Court, Deputy Solicitor General Neal K. Katyal urged the justices to find that the National Labor Relations Board had authority to act and issue opinions with only two members – as it had for more than two years.

The fact that the Senate had held up the confirmation of President Obama’s three nominees to the board – and had in fact blocked one of the candidates, union attorney Craig Becker, with a failed cloture vote – “underscores the general contentious nature of the appointment process with respect to this set of issues,” Katyal told the justices.

“And the recess appointment power doesn’t work why?” asked Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.

Over the weekend Obama showed that the power does indeed work. With the Senate in recess for more than three days, Obama made 15 recess appointments to administration posts – including Becker to the NLRB.

Late last week Republican senators as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged Obama not the use the recess appointment power for Becker. They argued that Becker represented a campaign promise made by Obama to unions during the election, and that Becker would essentially push to authorize “card check” unionizations in worplaces after legislation that would have done so lost steam in Congress. Much more on the Becker brouhaha here from Lawyers USA.

Meanwhile oral arguments continue today at the Supreme Court. The justices will hear arguments in cases involving double jeopardy and securities law.

In other news:

Predicting Stevens’ replacement: Since no one else is waiting for Justice John Paul Stevens to actually retire before opining about who might replace him, we won’t either. (Lawyers USA)

Gun law ok’d: A a federal court has upheld the gun regulations enacted in the District of Columbia after the Supreme Court’s ruling in D.C. v. Heller. (The BLT Blog)

Money talk: What’s the impact of the latest federal court ruling rejecting a constitutional challenge by the Republican Party to some federal limits on donations to political parties? SCOTUSblog explains. (SCOTUSblog)

The bad news? The economy is still in a pretty depressed state. The good news? If you are a lawyer who had a job at the beginning of February, chances are you still have that job!

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the legal sector lost only 100 jobs in the month of February. That is one tenth of the job losses in the industry in January, and just three percent of the total legal sector jobs lost in December. Perhaps a sign of better things to come? We can only wait and see.

And while you count your Oscar pool winnings, here’s a look at the legal headlines:

When the going gets tough…: Bankruptcy filings in the federal courts rose 31.9 percent in calendar year 2009, according to data released by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. (Lawyers USA)

Tough on prisoners? Is Justice Clarence Thomas too dismissive of prisoner abuse cases? (Los Angeles Times)

Anatomy of a (false) rumor: Folks are still trying to figure out just what the source was for last week’s false rumor that Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. was set to resign. (LA Times, Above the Law)

Boon for Levy case prosecutors? A recent Miranda ruling by the Supreme Court could make it easier for prosecutors in the murder case of former intern Chandra Levy. (McClatchy)

New credit card regs: The Federal Reserve Board has proposed a new rule that would protect credit card customers from unreasonable fees and penalties for late payments, and dissuade card companies from making drastic interest rate hikes. (Lawyers USA)

Food safety concerns: After another strain of salmonella was found in a plant that makes processed foods including soups, sauces, stews and hot dogs, lawmakers and a Food and Drug Administration official called for the passage of tougher food safety legislation. (Lawyers USA)

Church and state: If Justice John Paul Stevens steps own, will President Obama feel compelled to pick another Protestant to replace him? (Washington Post)

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)

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)