Among the court’s actions Monday: striking down an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, a ruling limiting Miranda’s reach before a witness is arrested, and a decision that certain facts that could boost a mandatory minimum sentence must be found by a jury, not a judge.

Check out our DC news page for all the latest activity from the Court.

Days after a district court struck down a federal law barring speeches, protests and other demonstrations on U.S. Supreme Court property, the court has made a move of its own to ensure that protestors remain on the public sidewalk rather than on the courthouse steps.

Those who have visited the Supreme Court building — particularly on days the justices hear controversial cases like the health care law challenge or the disputes over same-sex marriage laws — know that demonstrators are barred from the court’s large outdoor plaza leading up the door. For more than a half century, federal law has prohibited “processions or assemblages”  on the court’s marbled piazza, and police regularly direct protesters to remain on the sidewalk in front of the courthouse. (DC Dicta snapped the above photo the day the health care challenge was heard.)

But Tuesday, D.C. District Judge Beryl A. Howell held that the federal law violates the First Amendment. “It cannot possibly be consistent with the First Amendment for the government to so broadly prohibit expression in virtually any form in front of a courthouse, even the Supreme Court,” Howell wrote in the opinion, as a the Washington Post reported.

But don’t expect to see marches on the court’s plaza any time soon. Thursday the court issued a new regulation largely reintegrating the restrictions imposed by the law, which was posted on the court’s website:

“No person shall engage in a demonstration within the Supreme Court building and grounds.  The term ‘demonstration’ includes demonstrations, picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services and all other like forms of conduct that involve the communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which is reasonably likely to draw a crowd or onlookers.  The term does not include casual use by visitors or tourists that is not reasonably likely to attract a crowd or onlookers.”

The regulation was imposed to “maintain suitable order and decorum within the Supreme Court building and grounds,” and was approved by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., according to the New York Times.

It is unclear whether the district court’s ruling would apply to the rule, or if the judge’s ruling will be appealed.

The magazine points to several bits of evidence that the justice has gone from Sonia from the Bronx to the belle of the District:

Instead of settling in the suburbs of D.C. or the solitude of the Watergate in Washington like some of her colleagues, Sotomayor rented a pad in Cleveland Park before buying a condo in the U Street corridor – one of city’s hippest neighborhoods. (A DC Dicta spy recently spotted the court’s first Latina justice strolling along 14^th Street, sans entourage.)

In her free time she’s been seen salsa dancing or partying with chef José Andrés at his Penn Quarter eatery Jaleo. She hangs with the likes of Eva Longoria, J.Lo and Oprah. She’s a hit with the kids, appearing on Sesame Street twice. Vice President Joe Biden even rearranged his own schedule so that Sotomayor could fit his swearing-in ceremony around her book-signing appearances.

“She’s breaking the mold and lighting it on fire,” SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein told the magazine.

Edwards, who worked as a plaintiffs-side personal injury and product liability attorney in North Carolina before being elected to the U.s. Senate and later launching vice presidential and presidential campaigns,  is looking to start a new firm based in Raleigh, sources tell CNN (HT: National Law Journal).

Since receding from public view after his trial on the campaign finance charges resulted in acquittals on some charges and mistrials on others, Edwards has lived in Chapel Hill. He remains an active member of the North Carolina bar, according to CNN.

And with his nominations of attorney Patricia Ann Millett, U. S. District Court Judge Robert Leon Wilkins and Georgetown law professor Cornelia Pillard, Obama warned members of the Senate not to use stalling tactics or block the nominees.

“Chief Justice John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the highest court in the land, and former member of the D.C. Circuit Court says they need 11 judges,” Obama said yesterday in announcing the nominees.  “So it’s important we don’t play games here, and it’s important that we cut through the verbiage.”

The president also blasted a GOP proposal to reduce the number of judges on the court, which has long been one of the most fertile source of Supreme Court justices. Four of the nine current justices are former D.C. Circuit judges.

“When a Republican was President, 11 judges on the D.C. Circuit Court made complete sense.  Now that a Democrat is President, it apparently doesn’t.  Eight is suddenly enough,” Obama said, drawing chuckles from the crowd gathered in the White House lawn.  “People are laughing because it’s obviously a blatant political move.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, blasted what he called an attempt by the president to pack the appellate court for political gain. “It’s hard to imagine the rationale for nominating three judges at once for this court given the many vacant emergency seats across the country, unless your goal is to pack the court to advance a certain policy agenda,” said Grassley.  “No matter how you slice it, the D.C. Circuit ranks last or almost last in nearly every category that measures workload.”

Not only do the justices tend to save the biggest decisions for the final weeks before the court’s term wraps at the end of June, most of those rulings divide the justices — often 5-4. This year, we are expecting blockbuster rulings on issues including same-sex marriage, affirmative action, voting rights, DNA evidence collection and human gene patentability, and Kennedy — known as the court’s swing voter — may once again be the ultimate decider.

So what will he do? Only the justices know for sure at this point, but Time Magazine’s Massimo Calabresi pointed out that Kennedy has demonstrated in the past that he “likes to be on the right side of history.”

But, he said, “[a]s court watchers learn every June, however, it’s futile to try and guess how Kennedy will come down.”

The justice served as wedding officiant to Morgan Deann Ortagus and Jonathan Ross Weinberger, who tied the knot in the justice’s chambers at the Supreme Court Saturday, according to the New York Times. More here.

Of course, the State Department’s Office of the Chief of Protocol keeps tally of such presents. According to the latest list from the agency, featuring gifts bestowed to federal officials in 2010 and 2011, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. received some fancy sandstone bookends and a leather document box from Canadian and Italian officials. The swag’s total value estimated at just over $800.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. pulled in a bigger pile of loot, including an iPad, a Cartier watch and Persian rug, was valued at an estimated $5,275, according to the list obtained by the Wall Street Journal. (The full list contains all the offerings to the president, first lady and their children as well as other officials.)

Federal officials are constitutionally barred from accepting gifts from foreign states. But the gifts are still usually accepted, the most common official reason being “Non-acceptance would cause embarrassment to donor and U.S. Government.” They then become government property, usually displayed in the receiver’s office or used for official purposes, like the case of Holder’s iPad. The rest — including Holder’s blingy watch — is transferred to the General Services Administration.

In a speech commemorating the 10^th anniversary of the centering honoring the late justice, who was also the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, Roberts pointed out that Jackson loved oral advocacy – but often admonished lawyers not to try to butter up the members of the court.

“He noted that we justices think well enough of ourselves already,” Roberts said, according to the Buffalo News. “Now, I will have to leave it to others to decide whether that’s changed since Justice Jackson’s time.”

Roberts, like Jackson, hails from the western region of New York State.

In his opinion yesterday in Arlington v. FCC, Scalia was apparently peeved by the name of the wireless service provider trade group CTIA—The Wireless Association. The justice explains in a footnote:

“This is not a typographical error. CTIA—The Wireless Association was the name of the petitioner. CTIA is presumably an (unpronounceable) acronym, but even the organization’s website does not say what it stands for. That secret, known only to wireless-service-provider insiders, we will not disclose here.”

The organization later took to its Twitter account to politely point out Scalia’s apparent error (and his law clerks’ apparent lack of Google prowess): “CTIA isn’t an acronym. Our registered trademark name is CTIA-The Wireless Association,” the group tweeted, linking to a web page that explained that the letters once stood for the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association. Now, the name is merely an “orphan acronym.”

The whole matter irked Temple Law Prof. David Post, who took to the Volokh Conspiracy to call Scalia’s footnote: “a really embarrassing bit of nonsense — smarmy and snarky and extraordinarily stupid.”

On the WSJ’s Law Blog, Jacob Gershman points out: “Technically, CTIA is an initialism, not an acronym.” So there you have it.