“Gay marriage fight pits Texas AG vs. gay friend”: The Associated Press has this very interesting report.

“After Video Surfaces, Supreme Court Reviews Screening Procedures”: Tony Mauro has this post today at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

The post explains: “One possibility is that whoever took the videos did so with a pen camera that could evade detection, since spectators are allowed to take pens into the court and take notes.”

“Argument preview: Measuring mental handicap.” Lyle Denniston has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

Ninth Circuit grants rehearing en banc in case asking whether the Constitution permits a six-figure punitive damage award in a sexual harassment suit where the jury awarded no compensatory damages and only one dollar in nominal damages: You can access today’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at this link.

My coverage of the original partially divided three-judge panel’s ruling can be accessed here.

Update: In other coverage, at her “Trial Insider” blog, Pamela A. MacLean has a post titled “Court Reconsiders Limits on Punitive Damages.”

“Supreme Court Case May Stop States That Still Execute Mentally Disabled: The justices banned execution of mentally disabled people in 2002; Now they are poised to tell death penalty states that they really meant it.” Andrew Cohen has this essay online today at The Atlantic.

“Group Behind SCOTUS Video Speaks Out: ‘We Are Not Going To Sit Silently.'” This morning, Mike Sacks of HuffPost Live interviewed Kai Newkirk. You can view the video of the interview at this link.

“Sprague motion: Lower court tardy, so yank case.” In today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Joseph A. Slobodzian has an article that begins, “In what experts are calling an extraordinary legal gambit, Philadelphia lawyer Richard A. Sprague is asking the state Supreme Court to yank a case from the hands of three lower-court judges for taking too long to rule.”

According to the publicly available appellate court docket sheets in the case (see here and here), the appeal was argued before a three-judge panel of the Pa. Superior Court on January 15, 2013, and thus it has been awaiting decision for approximately 13-and-a-half months. The docket sheet for the newly filed Pa. Supreme Court application for relief can be accessed here.

Because the Pa. Supreme Court itself frequently takes longer than just over a year from oral argument to decide cases pending before it, perhaps Pennsylvania’s highest court will not be particularly astounded that the Superior Court is similarly taking that long to decide what I assume must be a rather complicated case.

Google and YouTube seek stay of Ninth Circuit’s takedown order pending disposition of upcoming petition for rehearing en banc in “Innocence of Muslims” case: I have posted the request for a stay, filed late yesterday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, at this link.

My earlier coverage of Wednesday’s Ninth Circuit ruling can be accessed here and here.