“Court sides with newspapers in dispute with RDU”: The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina has an update that begins, “The Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority is violating the First Amendment with its ban on newspaper coin vending racks at the airport, a federal appellate court ruled today.”

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

“Court OKs TV rules opposed by Comcast, Cablevision”: The Associated Press has a report that begins, “A federal court has upheld regulations that require cable TV companies to make channels they own available to satellite TV providers and other rivals on equal terms.”

Bloomberg News reports that “Comcast, Cablevision Lose Challenge to Sharing Rule.”

Reuters reports that “U.S. court backs ban on some cable TV program deals.”

And The Wall Street Journal has a news update headlined “Court Upholds FCC Ban On Exclusive Cable Contracts.”

Circuit Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh issued a lengthy dissenting opinion expressing the view that the regulations at issued violated the First Amendment. The dissent may ultimately lead to U.S. Supreme Court review of the case.

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

“Second Circuit Rejects Most Of Attorney Advertising Rules”: The New York Law Journal has a report that begins, “In rejecting the bulk of New York’s content-based restrictions on attorney advertising, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held Friday that a ban on the use of nicknames like ‘Heavy Hitters’ or client testimonials about pending cases violates the First Amendment.”

And at the “New York Personal Injury Law Blog,” Eric Turkewitz has a post titled “2nd Circuit Rejects Most of New York’s Attorney Advertising Rules.”

You can access today’s Second Circuit ruling at this link.

Programming note: Due to some work-related meetings out of the office this afternoon, additional posts will not appear until later today.

“Appeals court reinstates limits on brothel ads; AG applauds and ACLU decries decision”: This article appears today in The Las Vegas Review-Journal.

“Pledge of Allegiance’s God reference now upheld by court; In 2002, the U.S. 9th Circuit of Appeals had ruled that the pledge’s use of ‘One nation under God’ made it unconstitutional; The panel now says no federal law requires students to recite it”: Carol J. Williams has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

In today’s edition of The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “Appeals Court says ‘Under God’ not a prayer.”

Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News reports that “Appeals court rejects challenge to Pledge of Allegiance in schools.”

Dan Levine of The Recorder reports that “Reinhardt Stands Alone on 9th Circuit’s Pledge of Allegiance ‘Under God’ Ruling.”

And The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Federal court approves ‘under God’ in Pledge of Allegiance; Atheist Michael Newdow challenged ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance and ‘in God we trust’ on US currency as unconstitutional endorsements of religion; But the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals said the references to God are grounded in historical philosophy and politics.”

“3rd Circuit Asked to Clarify Student Internet Speech Cases”: Shannon P. Duffy of The Legal Intelligencer has this report.