“Cruel and Unusual Punishment: The Shame of Three Strikes Laws; While Wall Street crooks walk, thousands sit in California prisons for life over crimes as trivial as stealing socks.” Matt Taibbi has this article online at Rolling Stone.

“Top court ruling upholds privacy of e-mail, texts”: Kirk Makin of The Toronto Globe and Mail has this news update.

The Toronto Star has a news update headlined “Supreme Court rules police need wiretap authority to seize text messages; The Supreme Court clarified Wednesday that police need wiretap authority to snoop on cellphone text messages as part of criminal investigations.”

CBC News reports that “Wiretap laws apply to text messages, court rules; Judgment in privacy case overturns lower court ruling against Telus.”

The Canadian Press reports that “Supreme Court rules on police powers for snooping on text messages.”

And Ars Technica has a report headlined “Canadian Supreme Court enforces stricter standards on cops reading text messages; High court says a wiretap warrant, rather than a general warrant, is required.”

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

“Court tosses polo mogul John Goodman’s adoption of girlfriend”: The Palm Beach Post has a news update that begins, “An appellate court has tossed Wellington polo mogul John Goodman’s adoption of his 42-year-old girlfriend as he battled DUI manslaughter charges, issuing the finding in a scathing decision where the justices said Goodman committed a ‘fraud upon the court’ and a senior judge called his actions ‘reprehensible.'”

The South Florida Sun Sentinel has a news update headlined “Goodman can’t adopt 43-year-old girlfriend, court rules; Polo mogul’s bid to adopt grown woman a ‘fraud,’ ruling says.”

The Associated Press reports that “Court reverses Fla. mogul’s adoption of girlfriend.”

And GossipExtra.com reports that “John Goodman’s Adoption of His Girlfriend Tossed Out.”

You can access today’s ruling of Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal at this link.

“‘Crickets’ trip up deputy solicitor general”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this blog post.

“Ditching DOMA: Judging by Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing, the Defense of Marriage Act can’t be defended.” Emily Bazelon has this Supreme Court dispatch online at Slate.

“Gay marriage, voters’ rights and the thorny Prop 8 standing problem”: Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has this report.

“Court: Priceline has no fiduciary duty in booking service.” Reuters has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued today.

“Still Cautious, Supreme Court May Overturn Federal Marriage Law”: Tony Mauro has this post at “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.”

And Howard Mintz of The San Jose Mercury News has an update headlined “Gay marriage in the U.S. Supreme Court: federal law denying benefits to gay couples on shaky ground.”

“Fight over Pendleton Round-Up costume heading to Oregon Supreme Court”: The Oregonian has this report.

“Is the New York Thruway toll discount for residents of Grand Island, New York unconstitutional?” That was the title of a post that appeared here at “How Appealing” on October 15, 2009 reporting on a Second Circuit ruling issued that day. According to my post, the ruling “reinstated, in part, a lawsuit challenging as unconstitutional a toll discount for residents of Grand Island, New York when crossing the Grand Island Bridges.”

On remand, the federal district court once again rejected the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges to the toll discount. In a per curiam opinion issued today, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the district court’s rejection of the plaintiffs’ right-to-travel and dormant Commerce Clause claims.

Access online the audio from today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307: The Court has posted the audio at this link. And you can access the transcript by clicking here.

“5 Justices Skeptical of Ban on Benefits to Gay Spouses”: Adam Liptak and Peter Baker of The New York Times have this news update.

Robert Barnes and Sandhya Somashekhar of The Washington Post have a news update headlined “Majority of justices question constitutionality of DOMA.”

David G. Savage and David Lauter of The Los Angeles Times have a news update headlined “Liberal justices, Kennedy appear to favor ending part of DOMA.”

Evan Perez, Brent Kendall, and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal have a news update headlined “Justices Ask if Defense of Marriage Case Belongs Before Court; Supreme Court Was Hearing Second Day of Gay-Marriage Debate.”

Richard Wolf and Kevin Johnson of USA Today have a news update headlined “Justices attack both sides in Defense of Marriage case; Justice Anthony Kennedy’s comments suggest the federal Defense of Marriage Act may be on the way out; But first, the justices must decide if the case is properly before them for a decision.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers reports that “Gay marriage debate day 2: Supreme Court takes on Defense of Marriage law.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “High court skeptical of federal marriage law.”

Lawrence Hurley and David Ingram of Reuters report that “Supreme Court indicates may strike down marriage law.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court Questions Federal Gay-Marriage Law.”

Politico.com reports that “DOMA on shaky ground in court.”

Ryan J. Reilly and Mike Sacks of The Huffington Post have a report headlined “Supreme Court DOMA Case: Justices Sounded Skeptical Of Law’s Constitutionality, Ongoing Enforcement.”

At TPM DC, Sahil Kapur reports that “Defense Of Marriage Act Takes A Beating At Supreme Court.”

Tom Curry, national affairs writer for NBC News, reports that “Justices signal they might strike down federal marriage law.”

At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Marcia Coyle has a dispatch titled “U.S. Supreme Court Casts Doubt on DOMA.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument recap: DOMA is in trouble.”

“North Dakota governor signs abortion bills”: This article appears today in The Bismarck Tribune.

The Associated Press reports that “ND gears up for legal dispute on new abortion laws.”

And Linda Feldmann of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Why new law makes North Dakota most anti-abortion state: The fetal-heartbeat law, signed by the governor Tuesday, bans abortion as early as six weeks of gestation; North Dakota is also poised to consider a ‘personhood amendment’ to its state constitution, which would ban abortion altogether.”

“CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin Gets Hit In Face With Light Stand After Making First SCOTUS Prediction Since ‘Obamacare'”: Noah Rothman has this post (with video) at “Mediaite.”

“Anthony Lewis ’48, Pulitzer Winner and Crimson Mentor, Dies at 85”: The Harvard Crimson has this report.

And online at The New Republic, Michael Kinsley has an essay titled “Anthony Lewis: The Paul Krugman of His Time — And Then Some.”

“Friend of the Court: How Anthony Lewis Influenced the Justices He Covered.” Richard Tofel has this essay online today at ProPublica.

“5 Justices Seem Skeptical of Defense of Marriage Act”: Adam Liptak and Peter Baker of The New York Times have this news update.

“Legacy and the Supremes: A Psychoanalytic Look at the Court; What role does legacy play in the justices’ decisions?” This audio segment featuring law professor Rick Hasen — author of the “Election Law Blog” — appeared on today’s broadcast of WNYC Radio’s “The Takeaway.”

“Argument recap: Court troubled by tort protections for generic pharmaceutical manufacturers.” Ronald Mann has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Supreme Court conservatives target Obama on marriage law”: Lawrence Hurley and David Ingram of Reuters have an article that begins, “Midway into a second day of tackling the gay marriage issue, conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court said on Wednesday they were troubled by President Barack Obama’s decision in 2011 not to defend in court a ban Congress had approved.”

“The Laughable Argument Against Gay Marriage: The Supreme Court justices will eventually have to reckon with ‘responsible procreation.'” Law professor Jeffrey Rosen has this essay online at The New Republic.

“Knox case could pit extradition treaty against U.S. Constitution”: Terry Baynes of Reuters has this news analysis.

“Red Cross in Guantanamo a week early to check on hunger strikers”: Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has this report.

“Maine Lawyer Credited in Fight for Gay Marriage”: This article will appear in Thursday’s edition of The New York Times. In addition, the newspaper’s “City Room” blog has a post titled “A Marriage Born Where Tables for 2 Women Were Common.”

The Columbia Spectator reports today that “Morningside congressman to travel to D.C. to hear DOMA case.”

And online at The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin has a blog post titled “The Court’s Gay-Marriage Confusion.”

“SCOTUSblog” is among the recipients of the 72nd Annual Peabody Awards announced today by the University of Georgia’s Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication: You can access the full list of winners at this link, and a related news release can be accessed here.

Access online today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued two decisions in argued cases.

1. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Millbrook v. United States, No. 11-10362. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. And Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, No. 11-864. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer issued a joint dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court turns away class action against Comcast” and “Court says gov’t can be sued over guards’ actions.”

And Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court rules for Comcast in class action case.”

“Another Race Case for a Hostile Supreme Court”: Nikole Hannah-Jones has this essay online at ProPublica.

“Court to Hear Arguments on Defense of Marriage Act”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Supreme Court considers DOMA case.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “DOMA: Defense of Marriage Act up next at Supreme Court.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today has an article headlined “Next on the docket: Defense of Marriage Act.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court, in next gay marriage case, eyes federal law.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “High court hears case on federal benefits for gays.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has an article headlined “Court Reluctant on Gay Marriage Turns to Benefit Question.”

From NPR, yesterday’s broadcast of “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment titled “High Court’s Decision On Federal Marriage Law Has Tax Implications.” And today’s broadcast of “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment titled “DOMA Challenge Tests Federal Definition Of Marriage.”

“Justices Say Time May Be Wrong for Gay Marriage Case”: Adam Liptak has this front page article today in The New York Times. The newspaper also contains articles headlined “Oral Arguments Echo in Gatherings Across Nation” and “Good Friends, Same Party but Legal Opponents.” An editorial is titled “The California Marriage Case.” And columnist Maureen Dowd has an op-ed titled “Courting Cowardice.”

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Supreme Court justices conflicted on same-sex marriage case.” In related coverage, “Thousands rally outside Supreme Court as it hears cases on gay marriage.” And in commentary, columnist Dana Milbank has an op-ed titled “Same-sex marriage can’t be stopped by courts“; columnist Matt Miller has an op-ed titled “Gay marriage is a matter of class“; and Jeff Chu has an op-ed titled “No court can change attitudes on marriage.”

David G. Savage and Noam N. Levey of The Los Angeles Times have an article headlined “Supreme Court seems willing to restore gay marriage in California; The sharply divided justices also appear uncomfortable with legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.” And in related news, “Prop. 8 hearing draws thousands to Supreme Court; Church groups and other opponents of gay marriage vie for attention with same-sex couples, their children and other advocates of overturning California’s ban.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has an article headlined “Court Weighs Gay Marriage; Skeptical Justices Challenge Both Sides; Kennedy Warns of ‘Uncharted Waters.’”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “On Prop. 8, Supreme Court gives few hints of sweeping gay marriage ruling; Supreme Court arguments on Prop. 8 were at times pointed, but the justices often seemed tentative, giving the impression that their decision in the gay marriage case might not be broad.” And a related article is headlined “Both sides of gay marriage fight agree: today was historic; Proponents of gay marriage are hopeful and opponents wary after arguments on Proposition 8 at the Supreme Court Tuesday; But both acknowledge the import.”

McClatchy Newspapers report that “Outside Supreme Court, supporters and opponents of gay marriage divided by family, faith.”

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Prop. 8 ruling could be limited.”

The Washington Times contains articles headlined “Gay-marriage questions offer few clues to Supreme Court’s direction“; “Voices pro and con ring out as Supreme Court weighs gay marriage“; and “Both sides optimistic, uncertain as gay marriage arguments end.”

From NPR, today’s broadcast of “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment titled “Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Docket Draws Crowds.” Yesterday evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained audio segments titled “At Arguments, Supreme Court Takes Halting Steps Into Gay Marriage Issue“; “California’s Proposition 8 Gets Its Day In The Supreme Court“; “Supreme Court Likely To Duck Any Major Decision In Proposition 8 Case“; “Proposition 8 Case Has High Political Stakes For Both Parties“; “Outside the Supreme Court, The Arguments Continue“; and “Other States Could Be Affected By Supreme Court’s Proposition 8 Ruling.” And yesterday’s broadcast of “Talk of the Nation” contained an audio segment titled “A Recap Of Proposition 8’s Day At The Supreme Court.”

Yesterday evening’s broadcast of The PBS NewsHour contained segments titled “High Court Hears Challenge to Same-Sex Marriage Ban” and “Attorneys Debate Constitutionality, Legal Standing on Prop 8 Case.”

From Reuters, Lawrence Hurley and David Ingram report that “Supreme Court wary of broad gay marriage ruling.” And Joan Biskupic has a news analysis headlined “Supreme Court seems poised to avoid same-sex marriage tide.”

At the “School Law” blog of Education Week, Mark Walsh has a post titled “Justices Weigh Impact of Same-Sex Marriage on Children.”

And at “Above the Law,” Michelle Olsen has a guest post titled “The Proposition 8 Supreme Court Arguments: Standing and Standing.”

“Corman and Folmer won’t be drawn on Orie Melvin replacement”: The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania contains this article today, along with articles headlined “Sen. Rob Teplitz looking for non-ideologue moderate as Melvin’s replacement” and “Vance: Court replacement will require ‘god-like qualities.’”

Today’s edition of The Scranton Times-Tribune contains an editorial titled “Replacement test for merit selection: Governor to nominate interim justice on top court.”

Today’s edition of The Express-Times of Easton, Pennsylvania contains an editorial titled “Panella would make exemplary Pa. Supreme Court judge.”

And in The Philadelphia Daily News, columnist John Baer has an essay titled “One supreme mess.”