“A Christmas Eve Appellate E-Filing ‘Miracle’ in Pa. Court”: Tuesday’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer — Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers — will contain this month’s installment of my “Upon Further Review” column.

You can freely access the full text of the column via Google News.

“US court: FBI physical fitness test not discriminatory.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court says an FBI physical fitness test that imposes different standards for male and female trainees doesn’t amount to illegal sex discrimination.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at this link.

“Wearing unearned medals is protected by 1st Amendment, appeals court rules”: Maura Dolan of The Los Angeles Times has this report.

Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has an article headlined “Court: Wearing unearned military medal is protected by Constitution.”

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “US court: Wearing unearned military medals is free speech.”

You can access today’s 8-to-3 en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

“Supreme Court majority is critical of compelled public employee union fees”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court appears skeptical of union fees — a potentially major loss for labor groups.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Shows Signs of Ruling Against Mandatory Public-Sector Union Fees; Justices appear ready to end unions’ power to require nonmembers to pay dues.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court seems sure to rule against unions.”

Sam Hananel of The Associated Press reports that “High court seems ready to scrap mandatory public union fees.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Conservative U.S. justices prepared to deliver blow to unions.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Mandatory Union Fees Cast in Doubt at U.S. Supreme Court.”

On this evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Weighs Changes That Would Hurt Public Unions’ Bottom Lines.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Conservative justices skeptical of union position in big labor case.”

Brian Mahoney and Josh Gerstein of Politico.com report that “SCOTUS signals support for anti-union plaintiffs.”

Tierney Sneed of TPM DC has an article headlined “Why Public Unions Should Be Afraid After Monday’s Supreme Court Arguments.”

Sam Baker of National Journal has an article headlined “At Supreme Court, Ominous Signs for Public-Sector Unions; The justices seemed likely to rule that certain union fees violate the First Amendment.”

Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post reports that “The Supreme Court Appears Set To Issue Crippling Blow To Public Employee Unions; The ruling would undo nearly 40 years of precedent in labor relations.”

Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed News reports that “Supreme Court Appears Poised To End Public Sector Union Fee Requirements; A five-justice majority appears set to end ‘agency fees’ in public sector unions.”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument analysis: The question not asked.”

At the “School Law” blog of Education Week, Mark Walsh has a post titled “Teachers’ Unions Get Cold Reception at U.S. Supreme Court.”

Online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a jurisprudence essay titled “What Would Happen if the Court Kneecapped the Unions? We’re about to find out.”

And at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has a post titled “Public Sector Unions Just Got Brutalized In The Supreme Court.”

“After 14 months, Senate finally approves Phila. judge”: Jonathan Tamari of The Philadelphia Inquirer has an article that begins, “The Senate confirmed Philadelphia Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo to a federal appeals court seat on Monday, ending a 14-month delay that had become a flashpoint in a national fight over the judiciary.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Senate confirms Restrepo as other nominees languish.”

You can access at this link the U.S. Senate‘s official roll call vote tally confirming Luis Felipe Restrepo to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit by a vote of 82-to-6.

Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court did not grant review in any new cases.

“Supreme Court Seems Poised to Deal Unions a Major Setback”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

And in today’s edition of that newspaper, Noam Scheiber has an article headlined “Supreme Court Case on Public Sector Union Fees Rouses Political Suspicions.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Assn, No. 14-915.

I intend to link to additional news coverage of this oral argument tonight.

“Law on Ultrasounds Reignites Abortion Battle in North Carolina”: Richard Fausset has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

“Lawyers who fought Nadon’s Supreme Court appointment ask for pay”: The Canadian Press has an article that begins, “The lawyers who challenged the Harper government’s ultimately aborted appointment of Justice Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada go before a court on Monday to argue they should be fully reimbursed for their efforts.”