Programming note: On Wednesday, I will be presenting oral arguments in two unrelated cases to the same three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. As a result, additional posts will not appear here until Wednesday evening.

At 10 a.m. eastern time on Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue one or more opinions. Once the Court posts the decisions online, you can access them via this link.

“Judge rejects minister’s claim on Oklahoma license plate”: The Tulsa World has a news update that begins, “A federal judge has rejected a Bethany pastor’s claim that the state’s license plates convey a religious message contrary to his beliefs.”

And The Oklahoman has a news update headlined “Federal judge dismisses Oklahoma pastor’s license plate suit.”

I have posted online at this link today’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

“Western property rights case pits landowners, government; An 1875 congressional law and a 1942 court decision don’t answer whether the government or private landowners have first dibs on former railroad property”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument recap: Oh, give me land, lots of land . . .”

“U.S. judge strikes down Oklahoma’s ban on gay marriage”: Chris Casteel of The Oklahoman has this news update.

The Tulsa World has a news update headlined “Oklahoma ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional.”

Erik Eckholm of The New York Times has a news update headlined “Federal Judge Rejects Oklahoma’s Gay Marriage Ban.”

The Associated Press reports that “US judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban.”

At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Oklahoma gay marriage ban struck down.”

And Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed reports that “Oklahoma Ban On Same-Sex Marriages Is Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma at this link.

“With 5th Circuit split on class constitutionality, what’s next for BP?” Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight today has this report.

“Justices press government in Wyo. man’s challenge to Forest Service rail trail”: Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire has this report.

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, No. 12-1173.

“Argument recap: Bankruptcy and the slippery slope.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, No. 12-1200.

“Federal Judges in U.S. See $25,000 More as Salary Freeze Falls”: James Rowley of Bloomberg News has this report.

“As A Latina, Sonia Sotomayor Says, ‘You Have To Work Harder'”: This audio segment appeared on yesterday’s broadcast of NPR’s “Fresh Air.”

“Supreme Court enshrines ‘reasonable suspicion’ for device search at border; Extensive search of a convicted sex offender’s laptop is totally reasonable”: Cyrus Farivar of Ars Technica has this report.

“TV Networks Ask D.C. Circuit to Freeze Online Streaming Case”: Zoe Tillman has this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

“Supreme Court extends protections for multinational companies”: Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this news update.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Supreme Court throws out overseas human rights case.”

And Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Justices say U.S. courts can’t resolve foreign lawsuits; Decision is a victory for multinational corporations seeking to avoid U.S. liability for actions that occur overseas.”

“High court OKs Miss. lawsuit on LCD price fixing”: The Associated Press has this report.

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. high court rules against companies in LCD-screen case.”

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Companies Rejected as U.S. High Court Backs State Suits.”

“Because Vasquez was not in the United States when he was ‘found’ and, when ‘found in’ the United States, was here involuntarily, Vasquez’s conviction was plainly erroneous and it would constitute manifest injustice to allow it to stand.” So holds the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a ruling issued today.

According to the decision, the defendant was seeking to permanently depart from the United States by walking over the Rainbow Bridge at Niagara Falls into Canada. However, the Canadian authorities denied him admission and returned him to United States authorities in handcuffs.

“Rap Lyrics on Trial”: In today’s edition of The New York Times, Erik Nielson and Charis E. Kubrin have an op-ed that begins, “Should rap lyrics be used in court as evidence of a crime? Next week, the Supreme Court of New Jersey will hear a case that could help decide just that.”

“Verizon Wins Net Neutrality Court Ruling Against FCC”: Bloomberg News has this report on a ruling that a partially divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued today.

In other coverage, The Wall Street Journal has a news update headlined “Appeals Court Strikes Down FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules; Ruling Could Give Broadband Providers Room to Charge Content Companies for Faster Speeds.”

The New York Times has a news update headlined “Court Rejects Equal Access Rules for Internet Providers.”

Reuters reports that “FCC says may appeal court ruling against its net neutrality rule.”

And at the “Hollywood, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has a post titled “Appeals Court Deals Blow to FCC’s ‘Net Neutrality’ Rules; In a victory for broadband carriers like AT&T and Verizon, the D.C. Circuit strikes down anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules.”

“Court set to rule on forcing California to ease prison crowding”: Reuters has this report.

“The NFL Goes Back to the Eighth Circuit”: Ryan Koopmans has this post today at “On Brief: Iowa’s Appellate Blog.”

“Obama Will Lose Recess Appointment Case, but Will Other Presidents Lose Their Power?” Andrew Cohen has this essay online today at The Daily Beast.

Access online today’s rulings in argued cases of the U.S. Supreme Court: The Court today issued two rulings in argued cases.

1. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Mississippi, Inc. ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 12-1036. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court in Daimler AG v. Bauman, No. 11-965. Justice Sotomayor issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. You can access the oral argument via this link.

In early news coverage, Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court rules for Daimler in Argentina human rights case.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Daimler Wins as U.S. High Court Rejects Human-Rights Suit.”

Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Court won’t allow DaimlerChrysler suit in Calif.”

And Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court rules for Daimler in Argentina human rights case.”

“Supreme Court hints it may limit president’s recess-appointments power; Justices appear likely to rule against the long-standing practice of filling high-level posts during Senate recesses”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin and Melanie Trottman have an article headlined “Supreme Court Likely to Rein In President’s Recess Appointments Power; Justices Suggest Executive Practice Under Both Parties Has Exceeded Constitutional Limits.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court Justices skeptical of Obama’s end run around Congress.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Supreme Court looks at a president’s power to appoint.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Supreme Court justices question Obama’s recess appointments; The Obama administration’s top lawyer told justices that a ruling against the president would ‘repudiate the constitutional legitimacy’ of thousands of appointments; A lawyer for Senate Republicans calls the episode a ‘complete abuse of the process.’”

Sahil Kapur of TPM DC reports that “Justices Consider Limiting Obama’s Power On Recess Appointments.”

At “The Note” blog of ABC News, Ariane de Vogue has a post titled “President’s Recess Appointments Get Cold Reception at Supreme Court.”

And on yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “U.S. High Court Hears Arguments On Recess Appointments.”

“Supreme Court looks to rein in top patent court with two new cases; Both cases involve legal tests that defendants say are too permissive”: Joe Mullin of Ars Technica has this report.

“Arguing in the Supreme Court a daunting task”: Law professor Erwin Chemerinsky had this essay yesterday in The Orange County Register.

“Argument preview: ‘Buffer zones’ and free speech.” Lyle Denniston has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”