“Appeals Court Sends ‘Smelly Washer’ Class Action Back For Another Look”: Daniel Fisher has this post at Forbes.com about a ruling that a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued today.

“Republican senators skipping recess to block Obama Supreme Court appointment”: Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times has this report.

“Supreme Court says Oakland can’t help fight pot dispensary closure”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.

“Bishop Zubik lead plaintiff in Obamacare challenge in Supreme Court”: Tracie Mauriello has this front page article in today’s edition of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Bradford Richardson of The Washington Times has an article headlined “Nuns’ contraceptive mandate case to come before Supreme Court; Little Sisters of the Poor to argue against accommodation.”

Kelsey Dallas of The Deseret News has an article headlined “What the latest challenge to the Affordable Care contraception mandate means for religious believers.”

And today’s edition of The New York Times contains an editorial titled “Religion and Birth Control at the Supreme Court.”

“Roles of Race and Partisanship in Legislative Maps Argued at Supreme Court”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument analysis: What does incumbency mean when the election is held?”

Update: In other coverage, Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Skeptical of Virginia Congressman’s Claim of Right to Favorable Voting Map; Republican Rep. Randy Forbes claims that a lower court order voiding Virginia’s congressional map harmed his chance of re-election.”

“U.S. top court weighs racketeering law’s scope in R.J. Reynolds case”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

“U.S. Law Is So Great Even Europeans Want to Use It”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg View.

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, No. 15-138.

“The Second Amendment expands, but maybe not by much”: Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Why Hulk Hogan’s $115 Million Gawker Verdict Is a Signpost for the Future: Emboldened public figures, using sharper tactics, may be able to get their cutting-edge privacy disputes to juries not willing to give the American media any breaks.” Eriq Gardner has this post today at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter.

“Who’s Afraid of Merrick Garland?” Amy Davidson has this post online today at The New Yorker.

“Supreme Court may decide against Va. Republicans in redistricting fight”: Robert Barnes and Jenna Portnoy of The Washington Post have this report.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court’s liberals flex their muscles.”

And Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Justices likely to reject GOP appeal over Virginia districts.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Wittman v. Personhuballah, No. 14-1504.

“Sorry, Hulk Hogan, the First Amendment Is on Gawker’s Side”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.

“U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple v. Samsung patent feud”: Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News has this report.

“Supreme Court orders SJC to reconsider stun gun ruling”: Martin Finucane and John R. Ellement of The Boston Globe have this report.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court suggests 2nd Amendment protects carrying a stun gun.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court questions Massachusetts’ stun gun ban.”

And Cristian Farias of The Huffington Post reports that “Supreme Court Almost Ruled That Stun Guns Are Protected By The Second Amendment; But Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas would’ve gone farther.”

“Gawker could still win Hulk Hogan case despite $115 million verdict: legal experts.” Reuters has this report.

“Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to Colorado’s Marijuana Laws”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “Supreme Court turns down case that challenges Colorado marijuana law.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rejects challenge to Colorado marijuana law from other states.”

Richard Wolf and Trevor Hughes of USA Today report that “Justices won’t hear Nebraska, Oklahoma marijuana dispute with Colorado.”

John Ingold and Ricardo Baca of The Denver Post report that “Supreme Court denies Oklahoma and Nebraska challenge to Colorado pot; Even though SCOTUS denied to hear Oklahoma and Nebraska’s pot suit against Colorado, the plaintiff states can still take their case to U.S. District Court.”

Chris Casteel of The Oklahoman reports that “Supreme Court rejects Oklahoma challenge to Colorado pot laws.”

And Joseph Morton of The Omaha World-Herald reports that “Supreme Court rejects Nebraska, Oklahoma’s challenge to Colorado pot law.”

“Supreme Court nominee Garland bows out of more cases”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has a blog post that begins, “Supreme Court nominee and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Merrick Garland begged off at least nine more court cases in recent days, signaling that he is suspending his work as chief judge on that court through at least mid-April.”

Access online today’s Order List of the U.S. Supreme Court: At this link. The Court today granted review in one new case. And the Court called for the view of the Solicitor General in one case.

The Court issued a summary per curiam decision in Caetano v. Massachusetts, No. 14-10078. Justice Samuel A. Alito issued an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined.

And in Nebraska v. Colorado, No. 144, Orig., Justice Thomas issued a dissent, in which Justice Alito joined, from the denial of the motion for leave to file complaint.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Justices will hear Samsung-Apple patent dispute“; “Justices order new look at Massachusetts stun gun law“; “Supreme Court rejects states’ challenge to Colorado pot law“; “High court won’t hear dispute over Oklahoma license plate“; “High court rejects appeal over ban on guns at post offices“; and “High court rejects Ohio’s appeal in case of police official.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court throws out Massachusetts stun gun ruling“; “U.S. top court agrees to hear Samsung-Apple patent fight“; “U.S. top court rejects suit against Colorado over marijuana law“; and “U.S. top court rejects EA Sports’ appeal over Madden videogame.”

And Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Stun-Gun Rights Backed by Unanimous U.S. Supreme Court“; “Samsung Gets Supreme Court Hearing on Apple Patent Award“; “Colorado’s Neighbors Rejected by High Court Over Marijuana“; “Interest-Rate Cap Appeal Draws U.S. Supreme Court Inquiry“; and “Electronic Arts Spurned by Top U.S. Court on NFL Ex-Player Suit.”

“Scalia, Alito Court Absences Shape Puerto Rico Debt-Relief Bid”: Greg Stohr and Michelle Kaske of Bloomberg News have this report.

“John Roberts Criticized Supreme Court Confirmation Process, Before There Was a Vacancy”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“First Step in Conservatives’ Supreme Court Fight: Agreeing on a Message.” Eric Lipton has this front page article in today’s edition of The New York Times.