“Where Is the Great Al Qaeda Courtroom Drama?” Amy Davidson has this blog post online today at The New Yorker.

“Global-Warming Case Tests The Limits Of An Aging Clean Air Act”: Today at Forbes.com, Daniel Fisher has a post that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday will hear arguments in a case that really ought to be debated in the halls of Congress: Whether greenhouse gases can be regulated the same as any other air pollutant.”

“Judge Posner’s Dog Ate His Homework”: Matthew J. Franck has this post today at National Review Online’s “Bench Memos” blog

My earlier coverage of last week’s oral argument in Univ. of Notre Dame v. Sebelius appears here and here.

“Court breathes new life into Michael Jordan’s suit over Jewel ad”: The Chicago Tribune has this news update reporting on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued yesterday.

“Court rules lawmakers can’t cut pension benefit increases for retired judges”: Howard Fischer of The East Valley Tribune has a news update that begins, “State lawmakers cannot balance the budget by limiting pension benefit increases for retired judges, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Thursday.”

And The Arizona Republic has a news update headlined “Court’s pension ruling could cost Arizona taxpayers millions.”

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

“New Rules, Same Results on Capitol Hill: Despite ‘the nuclear option,’ Republicans are still slowing Senate business to a halt.” This article appears in the February 21, 2014 issue of Newsweek.

“Aereo’s future rests on Copyright Act’s definition of ‘public'”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight today has this report.

“Texas Judge Gregg Costa gets nomination hearing”: Ben Kamisar of The Dallas Morning News has this blog post.

“UK Supreme Court judge Lord Wilson backs gay marriage”: BBC News has this report.

“Arizona Legislature approves controversial religion bill”: The Arizona Republic has a news update that begins, “The Legislature has given final approval to a controversial religion bill that’s spurring intense debate at the Legislature and across the country. The legislation, written by the conservative advocacy group Center for Arizona Policy and the Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom, would allow individuals to use religious beliefs as a defense against a lawsuit.”

“SEC Weighs in on Whistleblower Court Battle”: Rachel Louise Ensign has this post at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog” about an amicus brief that the SEC filed today in the Second Circuit.

“Garrett Epps’s Topsy-Turvy Misunderstanding of Religious-Liberty Precedents”: Ed Whelan has this post at National Review Online’s “Bench Memos” blog.

“Federal judges skeptical of industry challenge to EPA soot standard”: Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire has this report.

You can access the audio of today’s D.C. Circuit oral argument via this link (mp3 audio file).

“It takes a certain kind of personal-injury lawyer to look at the facts of this glittering night and wrest from them a plausible plaintiff and defendant”: So begins the third paragraph of an article by Caitlin Flanagan that The Atlantic posted online yesterday headlined “The Dark Power of Fraternities: A yearlong investigation of Greek houses reveals their endemic, lurid, and sometimes tragic problems — and a sophisticated system for shifting the blame.”

The article is the cover story of the magazine’s March 2014 issue.

Ninth Circuit agrees to expedite City of San Jose’s appeal challenging the legality of baseball’s federal antitrust exemption: You can access today’s order of a two-judge Ninth Circuit panel at this link.

The contents of the February 2014 issue of the Harvard Law Review are now available online: Via this link.

“Supreme Court asked to clear the air about greenhouse gas rules”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau has this report.

And Lawrence Hurley and Valerie Volcovici of Reuters have a news analysis headlined “U.S. air pollution authority faces Supreme Court tests.”

“27 liberal groups oppose Obama judicial nominee”: The Associated Press has this report.

And The Hill has a blog post titled “Liberal groups blast Obama judicial pick.”

“Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum won’t defend state’s ban on gay marriage”: The Oregonian has this news update.

The Statesman Journal of Salem, Oregon has a news update headlined “Oregon AG will not defend same-sex marriage ban.”

The Associated Press reports that “Oregon won’t defend gay-marriage ban in lawsuit.”

And Bloomberg News reports that “Oregon Attorney General Won’t Defend Gay-Marriage Ban.”

Update: In other coverage, at “SCOTUSblog” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Oregon ends defense of marriage ban.”

“NJ state bar association endorses renomination of Stuart Rabner, chief justice of the state supreme court”: The Record of Hackensack, New Jersey has this news update.

And The Associated Press has a report headlined “NJ bar group backs chief justice, warns gov” that begins, “The New Jersey State Bar Association says Gov. Chris Christie would undermine the independence of the judiciary if he refuses to reappoint the chief justice of the state Supreme Court.”

“High court could put brake on greenhouse gas rules; Industry opponents of greenhouse gas regulations contend billions of dollars and thousands of jobs are at stake, while environmental groups say Obama’s climate action plan could be crimped”: Richard Wolf has this article today in USA Today.

“Some days we are called upon to consider such profound issues as eleventh-hour death penalty appeals . . . . Today we consider the coating on sunflower seeds.” So begins the majority opinion that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

The case presents the interesting question whether state law false advertising claims asserting that “the sodium content in a ‘serving’ of sunflower seeds, as stated on the package, must include the sodium contained in the edible coating” are preempted by federal law. The majority’s opinion issued today answers “no.”

Update: In other coverage, at her “Trial Insider” blog, Pamela A. MacLean has a post titled “ConAgra Must Disclose Sunflower Seed Shell Salt Content.”

“Filing: Missouri finds new execution drug supplier.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “Court documents filed on behalf of Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster show that the state has found a new supplier of its execution drug, less than a week before convicted killer Michael Taylor is scheduled to be put to death.”

“Will the Roberts Court Follow Its Own Religious-Freedom Precedent? If the conservative justices uses the same logic they have in the past, Hobby Lobby’s case against the contraceptive mandate doesn’t stand a chance.” Law professor Garrett Epps has this essay online at The Atlantic.

“Storied law professor George Anastaplo dies”: Yesterday, The Hyde Park Herald posted online an article that begins, “George Anastaplo, 88, a Hyde Parker who became widely known for arguing his own case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, died Friday, Feb. 14.”

The March/April 2012 issue of The University of Chicago Magazine contained a profile of Anastaplo headlined “One door closes.”

You can access the U.S. Supreme Court‘s 5-to-4 ruling in In re Anastaplo, issued in April 1961, at this link. And Oyez provides access to the audio of the oral argument.

As Anastaplo’s Wikipedia entry explains, “The denial of his admission [to practice law in Illinois] became a Supreme Court case, In re Anastaplo, in which he insisted that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the privacy of political affiliations; in particular, he refused to answer questions about membership in the Communist Party.”

Loyola University Chicago School of Law, where Anastaplo was a law professor, has posted these remarks on his passing.

“Law.com will be winding down its blog network”: Debra Cassens Weiss has this post today at the ABA Journal’s “Law News Now” blog.

The “How Appealing” blog has been a part of the law.com blog network since April 20, 2006. The original news release reporting on this blog’s affiliation with the law.com blog network can be accessed here.

This blog has always had a special relationship with ALM’s law.com, being until very recently the only blog affiliated with or operated by an ALM publication that was hosted at a law.com address. To assuage anyone’s concerns (including Rick Hasen of the “Election Law Blog,” who has been tweeting the heck out of this story this morning), law.com has offered to continue hosting this blog even after its blog network winds down.

The impending discontinuance of the law.com blog network, which will come to an end on September 30, 2014, does provide an opportunity for me to reconsider whether I want to extend my relationship with law.com or to move this blog under the auspices of another organization. But, just as this blog continued in the aftermath of the end of operations of its first ever host, Legal Affairs magazine, this blog will continue regardless of where it is hosted.

In any event, thanks to everyone for all of the support that law.com’s announcement has already spawned on Twitter.

“Constitution Check: How private is the place where cellphone calls are made?” Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

“Fort Myers man’s family willing to take drug case to Supreme Court; Raising money for lawyer to fight drug sentence”: The News-Press of Fort Myers, Florida has an article that begins, “The family of a Fort Myers man sentenced to 60 years in 1994 for selling $850 worth of cocaine is trying to raise money to hire a lawyer with the expectation that arguments may stretch to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“Supreme Court asked to decide on three gun cases; Mixed bag of legislation confounds states, NRA”: This front page article appears today in The Washington Times.

The newspaper also contains a related article headlined “D.C. mom takes gun case to Supreme Court.”

“Supreme Court to hear challenge to greenhouse gas controls”: Maureen Groppe has this article today in The Indianapolis Star.

“U.S. Supreme Court to give Arizona death-row case an unusual 13th look”: Cronkite News has this report.

“Greenwich Village Chicago-style pizzeria battles Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia over the definition of ‘pizza’; High Court jurist made his ruling; But Emmett Burke offers a throwdown with the judge and pizza maven Jon Stewart”: The New York Daily News has this report.

“Would Cameras Turn the Supreme Court Into a Circus? C-SPAN was supposed to usher in an era of greater transparency and accountability on Capitol Hill; Look how that turned out.” Dustin Volz has this essay online at National Journal.

“Fighting over Sen. Rand Paul’s NSA lawsuit continues”: Columnist Dana Milbank of The Washington Post has an op-ed that begins, “The legal fight against National Security Agency surveillance is shaping up to be a titanic clash, with pugilistic litigants trading charges and countercharges of bad faith and misinformation. And that’s just among the plaintiffs.”

“S.F. wins ruling on high-capacity gun magazines”: In today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “San Francisco’s impending ban on high-capacity gun magazines will save far more lives than it risks, a federal judge declared Wednesday in rejecting gun advocates’ request to block the ordinance from taking effect.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Judge upholds San Francisco gun magazine ban.”

I have posted online at this link yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.