“Did Chief Justice John Roberts Save the Affordable Care Act?” Jeffrey Toobin had this post online yesterday at The New Yorker.

And in yesterday’s edition of The New York Times, columnist Gail Collins had an op-ed titled “An Ode to Obamacare.”

“Gay marriage: Hearts of Dixie — As Alabama goes, so goes America.” This article will appear in the February 14, 2015 issue of The Economist.

“Appeals court: Marshals can’t be sued for excessive force.” Sam Hananel of The Associated Press has this report.

And Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. court backs law enforcement officers in black teen’s shooting.”

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

“Lawyers win exemptions from money-laundering law”: Sean Fine of The Toronto Globe and Mail has a news update that begins, “The Supreme Court has declared sections of a federal anti-terrorism and money-laundering law to be unconstitutional, concluding a legal battle seen by Canada’s lawyers as a test of their profession’s independence.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada at this link.

“The Architect of the Obamacare Court Challenge Just Undermined Republicans’ Victory Strategy”: Brian Beutler has this essay online today at The New Republic.

Pennsylvania, which hasn’t executed anyone since 1999, now really, really, really won’t be executing anyone: Angela Couloumbis of The Philadelphia Inquirer has a news update headlined “Wolf halts death penalty in Pa.”

Karen Langley of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a news update headlined “Governor places moratorium on death penalty in Pennsylvania.”

Wallace McKelvey of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has an update headlined “Gov. Tom Wolf declares moratorium on death penalty in Pa.”

And The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has a news update headlined “Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf imposes death penalty moratorium.”

You can access Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf’s “Death Penalty Moratorium Declaration” at this link.

“Alabama school wants alleged rape victim to reveal name”: The Associated Press has this report on a case pending on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

“[T]raditionally the Rules Committees do not amend a rule unless there is a very good reason to do so”: This post, including its title, collects quotations from the FRAP Advisory Committee‘s draft minutes from the session at which the controversial proposed briefing word limit reduction amendment was discussed in greatest detail and approved for initial publication by a 6-to-4 vote.

“An appellate judge * * * wondered whether the bar would be shocked by a proposal to reduce length limits to 12,500 words”;

“[S]ome circuits are unwilling to grant permission to file an over-length brief”;

“An attorney member responded that he is generally hesitant to request such permission [to file an over-length brief]; another attorney member noted that he shares this reluctance. Mr. Letter noted that the circuits vary in their willingness to permit over-length briefs. An attorney member suggested that, since 1998, circumstances may have changed; perhaps the law is more complex, and perhaps lawyers are more prone to prolixity.”;

“The more stringent the length limit, the more likely that a litigant might fail to brief an issue that the court believes should have been addressed.”;

“In complex cases, lawyers need the full 14,000 words, and a reduction to 12,500 would force lawyers to spend time trying to reduce the length yet further or seeking permission to file an over-length brief.”;

“An attorney member stated that he opposed the reduction in briefing length limits. If attorneys use the full permitted length, it is because the case requires it.”;

“An appellate judge member reported a different experience; in the Eleventh Circuit, he said, lawyers tend to use all the space that is permitted to them. This judge member noted that the choice of length limit presents a tradeoff: One prefers shorter briefs when possible, but in complex cases one wants the briefs to help work out all the issues.”;

“Another appellate judge member stated that he supported shortening the length limits; he reported that briefs seem to be about 60 pages long now, and 50 pages would be preferable.”

With regard to that final comment, it is worth noting that even the proposed 12,500-word limit for principal federal appellate briefs would not necessitate the filing of briefs shorter than 60 pages, as this Brief for Appellant that I filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 2011 demonstrates. It contained 12,195 words and consisted of 64 pages of Century Schoolbook 14-point type. If the desire is to avoid briefs any longer than 50 pages, perhaps a 10,150-word limit for principal federal appellate briefs should be adopted.

Next Tuesday is the deadline for public comments supporting or opposing the proposed briefing word limit reduction. Comments must be submitted online via this link.

“Clergy-marriage bill clears Oklahoma House; The bill would codify ministers’ rights to refuse to perform weddings”: This article appears in today’s edition of The Tulsa World.

And Reuters reports that “Oklahoma bill would protect clergy who won’t perform gay marriages.”

“The Scalia/Ginsburg Reality Show: A ‘not 100 percent sober’ friendship.” Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has this report.

“High court’s odd couple on parasailing, elephants and not being ‘100% sober'”: Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com has this report.

“As sign-up deadline nears, a new risk for Obama health law”: The Associated Press has this report.

“LePage asks U.S. Supreme Court to review Medicaid case; The governor’s request to remove about 6,000 low-income young adults from the Medicaid rolls was rejected by a federal court”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Kentucky high court weighs whether voluntary underage sex should be a crime”: The Associated Press has this report.