“9th Circuit Finds Flaws in Robbery Conviction”: Courthouse News Service has this report on a 6-to-5 en banc ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued today.

“Prisoner suing for conjugal visits with his wives; Pa. court says corrections officials must provide more evidence to justify policy against conjugal visits”: Peter Hall will have this article in Wednesday’s edition of The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania.

You can access today’s ruling of a unanimous three-judge panel of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania at this link.

“Inmate dies after botched execution; second execution stayed; According to a Corrections Department spokesman, all three drugs had been administered, but they did not have the desired effect”: The Oklahoman has a news update that begins, “State Corrections Department officials stopped the execution of an inmate Tuesday after a botched lethal injection. Corrections Department Director Robert Patton later addressed members of the media, and announced after a blown vein, Lockett suffered a heart attack at 7:06 p.m., and was declared dead.”

The Tulsa World has a news update headlined “Execution botched before inmate dies of heart attack; second execution postponed” that begins, “The execution of convicted killer Clayton Lockett was botched tonight at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary before he died of a massive heart attack. The event prompted officials to postpone a second execution scheduled for two hours later.”

Erik Eckholm of The New York Times has a news update headlined “Oklahoma Stays Second Execution After First Is Botched.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Man dies of heart attack after botched execution.”

“Why can’t SCOTUSblog get a credential? It’s surprisingly hard to find out — and the journalists making the rules are as open as Chick-fil-A on Sunday.” Jonathan Peters has this lengthy post today at the “Behind the News” blog of Columbia Journalism Review.

On a related note, this blog’s helpful “Chick-fil-A” pronunciation guide can be accessed here (hint: it rhymes with “Sunday”).

“Strange benchfellows, Ginsburg and Scalia star in U.S. courtroom drama”: Joan Biskupic of Reuters has this report.

“Oklahoma Set for Double Execution Amid Storm Over Lethal-Drug Secrecy”: Erik Eckholm of The New York Times has this news update.

“Ex-Supreme Court Justice Hathaway won’t see early release from prison”: The Detroit News has an update that begins, “Former state Supreme Court Justice Diane Hathaway lost her bid Tuesday to pop out of ‘Camp Cupcake’ early.”

“In 9-0 vote, Supreme Court makes it easier to get fees in patent cases; Top patent court almost never makes bad actors pay; Supremes see it differently”: Joe Mullin of Ars Technica has this report.

And Diane Bartz of Reuters reports that “U.S. high court takes up case involving ambiguous patents.”

“Justices Seem Torn on Cellphone Warrants”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Justices split on whether police can search cellphones during arrests.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Justices search for compromise on cellphone privacy.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has a news update headlined “Supreme Court Is Wary of Warrantless Cellphone Searches.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Josh Gerstein and Tal Kopan of Politico.com report that “Justices appear open to limits on cellphone searches.”

Bill Mears of CNN.com reports that “Court seemingly at odds over cell phones and searches.”

And at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Orin Kerr has a post titled “Initial impressions from the oral argument in the Supreme Court cell phone search cases.”

“Justices consider no-warrant cellphone searches”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Police Phone Searches Draw Privacy Concerns at High Court.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices weigh limits to police cell phone searches.”

At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “Justices Skeptical of Broad Power to Search Phones.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument analysis: Limiting a search? Sure, but how?”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Riley v. California, No. 13-132. And you can access at this link the transcript of today’s oral argument in United States v. Wurie, No. 13-212.

In today’s mail: I received a copy of William Domnarski’s new book, “Swimming in Deep Water: Lawyers, Judges, and Our Troubled Legal Profession.”

At his “Hercules and the Umpire” blog, Senior U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf recently had a post about the book titled “A beautiful book for the briefcase.”

And the “Legal Writing Prof Blog” earlier this month had a post titled “A new book raises provocative points about legal writing.”

“Supreme Court Revives EPA Rule on Air Pollution Across State Lines; Court’s 6-2 Ruling Is Victory for Obama Administration; 28 States Will Have to Reduce Power-Plant Emissions”: Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has this news update.

“Michelle Friedland of S.F. confirmed for 9th Circuit Court”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.

In the May 2014 issue of ABA Journal magazine: Mark Walsh has an article headlined “Experts sound off once again on Justice Thomas’ silence.”

Lorelei Laird has an article headlined “Courts are hearing new challenges to tax exemptions for religion.”

Kristin Choo has an article headlined “Gun control advocates search for policies which pass 2nd Amendment muster.”

And this month’s installment of Bryan A. Garner’s “On Words” column is headlined “The tortuous tale behind the 10th edition of the most widely cited lawbook in the world.”

“Chief Justice Roberts, Meet Bundy and Sterling”: Jeffrey Toobin has this blog post online today at The New Yorker.

“At least 4 percent of those sent to death row in US are innocent, researchers say; The 4 percent figure is a conservative estimate, the researchers say in a study published Monday; Some of the innocent on death row are exonerated and freed, but not all, the study says”: The Christian Science Monitor has this article reporting on a study that the scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences posted online yesterday.

“Justice Ginsburg on the Supreme Court and societal change”: This post appears today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

“Oklahoma’s rare double execution drawing global media interest”: This front page article appears in today’s edition of The Tulsa World.

The Oklahoman reports that “Oklahoma’s first double-execution since 1937 set for Tuesday night; Executions are planned for 6 and 8 p.m. at the State Penitentiary in McAlester; Inmates Clayton Derrell Lockett and Charles Frederick Warner are set to be executed.”

Reuters reports that “Oklahoma to execute two convicts after ending court case on drugs.”

And online at The Week, Andrew Cohen has an essay titled “Oklahoma just neutered its state Supreme Court: Goodbye, judicial independence.”

Access online today’s U.S. Supreme Court rulings in argued cases: The Court today issued rulings in three argued cases.

1. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court in Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., No. 12-1184. All other Justices joined in the opinion in full, except for Justice Antonin Scalia, who did not join in three footnotes. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. Justice Sotomayor also delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc., No. 12-1163. You can access the oral argument via this link.

3. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., No. 12-1182. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined. And Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. did not participate in the decision. You can access the oral argument via this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “Court revives EPA rule on cross-state pollution.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court upholds air pollution regulation.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Obama Power-Plant Pollution Rule Upheld by Top U.S. Court.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today has an article headlined “Justices: Midwest states must slash wind-blown pollution; Decision by Supreme Court is a major boon to the Obama administration’s effort to control air pollution that travels across state lines.”

And at Politico.com, Alex Guillen reports that “Supreme Court upholds EPA air pollution rule.”

“In cell phone cases, U.S. top court to take up digital privacy”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

In today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin has an article headlined “Supreme Court to Weigh Cellphone Searches; Justices to Consider Whether Police Need Warrant to Search a Suspect’s Phone.” In addition, at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog,” Bravin has a post titled “California of Two Minds on Warrantless Searches of Cellphones.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “When can cops search cellphones? Supreme Court to hear cases; The US Supreme Court will hear two cases Tuesday that deal with police searching an arrestee’s cellphone without a warrant; Lower courts have disagreed on whether that is constitutional.”

On today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Weighing The Risks Of Warrantless Phone Searches During Arrests.”

And Tal Kopan of Politico.com has a blog post titled “Supreme Court to weigh cellphone searches.”